Download Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Change into

Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate
Climate Change into State Wildlife Action Plans
& Other Management Plans
November 2009
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
© RACHEL STEVENS PHOTO
Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate
Climate Change into State Wildlife Action Plans
& Other Management Plans
A Collaboration of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies’
Climate Change and Teaming With Wildlife Committees
November 2009
______________________________________________________________________________________
For additional resources and the most up-to-date information,
visit the State Wildlife Action Plan website at www.fishwildlife.org
Acknowledgements
This document was produced by the Climate Change Wildlife Action Plan Work Group which
was created as a joint work group by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Climate Change
and Teaming with Wildlife Committees in September 2008.
Climate Change Wildlife Action Plan Work Group
Patty Riexinger, New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation
(Chair)
Mike Harris, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
(Vice Chair)
*John O’Leary, Massachusetts Division of Fish & Wildlife
*Rocky Beach, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife
*Amber Pairis, California Department of Fish & Game
*Thomas Eason, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission
*Laura Richards, Nevada Department of Wildlife
*Eric Gardner, Arizona Game & Fish Department
*David Whitehurst, Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries
*Molly Cross, Wildlife Conservation Society
Dennis Figg, Missouri Department of Conservation
Doug Parsons, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission
Joyce Francis, Arizona Game & Fish Department
Mike Stone, Wyoming Department of Game and Fish
EJ Williams, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Steve Jose, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Loring Schwarz, The Nature Conservancy
Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife
Sara O’Brien, Defenders of Wildlife
Austin Kane, National Wildlife Federation
Bill Geer, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Bruce Young, NatureServe
Robin Schrock, US Geological Survey
Arpita Choudhury, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Mark Humpert, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
*subcommittee co-chair
Work Group Advisors
Rick Schneider, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Holly Michael, Oregon Department Fish & Wildlife
Tracey Tomajer, New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Jane Anderson, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
Aaron Brees, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Lynn Quattro, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Dwayne Meadows, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.
Carol Price, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Tara Bergeson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Tom Schreiner, Colorado Division of Wildlife
Jeff Lerner, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
Doug Vincent Lang, Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Mike Sweet, US Fish & Wildlife Service
The following contributed to the final editing and review of this document
Holly Michael, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
Sara O’Brien, Defenders of Wildlife
Mark Humpert, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Arpita Choudhury, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Terra Rentz, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Financial Contributors
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
______________________________________________________________________________________
Layout and Design – Victor Young
Front Cover Photo Credits:
ACE Basin NERRS, South Carolina – Kim Counts photo;
Spotted Salamander – New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Victor Young photo;
Common Eastern Bumble Bee – Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection;
Pronghorn Antelope – Hal Brindley photo;
Yellow Rumped Warbler – Johnny N. Dell photo, Bugwood.org;
Humpback Chub – Arizona Game and Fish Department.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Climate Change Wildlife Action Plan Guidance
Document provides voluntary guidance for state fish
and wildlife agencies wanting to better incorporate the
impacts of climate change on wildlife and their habitats
into Wildlife Action Plans. The approaches and techniques
described in this document will also be useful in modifying
other wildlife plans (e.g. big game/upland game/migratory
bird plans, joint venture implementation plans, national
fish habitat action plan, etc.) to address climate change.
The document provides an overview of the information
currently available on climate change, tools that can be
used to plan for and implement climate change adaptation, voluntary guidance and case studies. Climate change
is a large and growing threat to all wildlife and natural
systems and will also exacerbate many existing threats.
Efforts to address climate change should not diminish the
immediate need to deal with threats that may be independent of climate change such as habitat loss/fragmentation
from development, introduction of invasive species, water
pollution and wildlife diseases. Since climate change is a
complex and often politically-charged issue, it is understood that the decision to revise Wildlife Action Plans or
other plans to address climate change, rests solely with
each state fish and wildlife agency.
All states will be required to update their Wildlife
Action Plans by 2015, although some states have opted
for earlier revisions. Wildlife Action Plans may need to
be revised earlier or more frequently than anticipated to
account for the accelerating impacts of climate change.
In addition climate change legislation passed in the U.S.
House of Representatives in June 2009 would require each
state to develop a state adaptation strategy and to incorporate that strategy into a revision of the state’s Wildlife
Action Plan (similar legislation in the U.S. Senate is being
considered). Although revision of Wildlife Action Plans
for climate change is not currently required, starting the
revision process now can help states prepare for potential
climate change funding through federal appropriations
in FY10 and/or through funding that may become available if Congress passes comprehensive climate change
legislation.
The Guidance Document consists of three major chapters that provide information and resources that could be
used to update Wildlife Action Plans to incorporate climate
change impacts. Chapter 1 introduces processes, approaches and key concepts that can be used to develop climate
change adaptation strategies for fish and wildlife management. Chapter 2 describes tools, both old and new, that may
be useful in developing, implementing and monitoring for
these plans. Chapter 3 provides more detail on the process
ii
of updating Wildlife Action Plans, summarizes existing
guidance and discusses how addressing climate change
might affect the plan revision process. The references
section and appendices to the document are a source of additional information on climate change.
Chapter 1: Adaptation Strategies
The first chapter provides guidance on how to develop
climate change adaptation strategies. Adaptation is defined
as adjustment in natural or human systems in response
to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects,
which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (IPCC). Key concepts, approaches and processes
are discussed, but just as each state faces a unique set of
climate impacts, each will need to customize its approach
to adapt to those changes. To illustrate the diversity of
potential strategies, the document contains several case
studies to demonstrate how states have begun to identify
and implement wildlife adaptation planning. Developing
and implementing adaptation strategies will involve
looking at what we are currently doing to conserve fish,
wildlife and their habitats through the lens of climate
change and identifying which strategies should be
continued, which need to be significantly altered to avoid
negative consequences, which might only require minor
adjustments and which need to be reevaluated to determine
urgency and priority. It will also require that states look
at new approaches and tools to determine what additional
conservation actions we should be taking in light of a
changing climate. Taking an adaptive approach to fish
and wildlife conservation will be especially important,
given the uncertainties and our evolving understanding of
the impacts and response of climate change to wildlife,
ecosystems and ecological processes.
Climate change adaptation strategies will vary among
regions and ecosystems depending on effects of climate
change and the social-political contexts used for management decisions. Therefore, it is important to develop
feasible site-based and target-based strategies for conservation action. Climate adaptation planning can include the
following steps: 1) engage diverse partners and coordinate
across state and regional boundaries; 2) take action now
on strategies effective under both current and future
climate conditions; 3) clearly define goals and objectives
in the context of future climate conditions; 4) consider
appropriate spatial and temporal scales when assessing
wildlife adaptation needs; 5) consider several likely or
probable scenarios of future climate and ecological conditions; and 6) use adaptive management to help cope with
climate change uncertainties. Identifying the target species,
communities, ecosystems, or ecological processes to be
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
addressed by climate change adaptation planning and
action is a critical part of setting goals and objectives of
an adaptation strategy. In many cases, wildlife adaptation
may require managers to use a habitat or an ecosystembased approach to conservation. Species conservation will
become more challenging as habitats change, resulting
in new and sometimes unfamiliar combinations of plants
and animals. Species conservation efforts that focus on
identifying and protecting those habitats most likely to
persist as climate changes, will likely be better investments than those that depend on habitats which are likely
to become unsuitable. The case studies in chapter one
provides examples of how adaptation can be applied on the
landscape.
Chapter 2: Adaptation Toolbox
Vulnerability Assessments
Understanding which species and habitats are most
vulnerable and why is key to developing effective adaptation strategies. This process is often referred to as a vulnerability assessment. The goal of a vulnerability assessment
is to describe the following elements: 1) exposure; 2)
sensitivity; and 3) the capacity to adapt to climate change.
A vulnerability assessment provides the scientific basis for
developing climate adaptation strategies and uses information about future climate scenarios with ecological information about climate sensitivity and adaptive capacity to
help managers anticipate how a species or system is likely
to respond under the projected climate change conditions.
The relative vulnerability of species or habitats can be used
to set goals, determine management priorities and inform
decisions about appropriate adaptation strategies. The
following steps can be taken when assessing vulnerability
to climate change: 1) determine the scope of the assessment; 2) collect relevant climate and ecological data; and
3) describe vulnerability qualitatively and/or quantitatively.
The vulnerability case studies illustrate a range of methods
for balancing the need for information on climate impacts
and responses, the importance of stakeholder participation
and limitations on the time and resources available for a
vulnerability assessment.
Adaptive Management
Adaptive management can be an important tool for
making management decisions with incomplete information and high levels of uncertainty under climate change.
As agencies struggle with problems associated with climate
change under increasingly strained budgets, the flexibility
of adaptive management allows agencies to continually
acquire new information for decision-making without
indefinitely postponing needed actions.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Monitoring
Targeted monitoring is critical to adaptive management and should be comprehensive and detailed enough
to evaluate a decision or action but not so complex or
expensive that the monitoring program overwhelms an
agency’s capacity and impedes the management process.
The following types of monitoring are explained: 1) status
and trends (extensive) monitoring; 2) research (intensive)
monitoring; 3) effectiveness monitoring; and 4) implementation monitoring.
Chapter 3: Revision Process
The Revision Process chapter includes a review and
summary of existing guidance related to Wildlife Action
Plan development. The chapter also provides the following
climate change-related guidance specific to each of the
“eight elements” required for development of Wildlife
Action Plans.
• Element One (species distribution and abundance)
states may want to use vulnerability assessments to
support the addition/removal of species from their
list of species in greatest need of conservation and
examine how climate change could impact distribution
and abundance of species and their status as native or
exotic.
• Element Two (location and condition of key habitats)
states may want to assess how habitats and species
ranges may change as a result of current and future
climate change through scenario-building; both temporally and spatially and plan for novel communities/
ecosystems that appear due to these shifts.
• Element Three (descriptions of problems and priority
research survey efforts) states may want to consider both
direct and indirect impacts of climate change; identify
and execute research in partnership with other states/
regions to gain economy of scale and consider climate
change as an additional “layer” of threats to existing
threats.
• Element Four (descriptions of conservation
actions) states should consider actions for a range
of likely future climate conditions; identify/describe
how conservation actions will be prioritized when
considering multiple threats; identify actions that
minimize, not necessarily eliminate climate change
impacts; provide for wildlife adaptation; and provide
for resilience and/or facilitate movement to suitable
habitats and conditions.
iii
• Element Five (monitoring plans) states should strive
to implement streamlined and affordable monitoring
programs that inform management decisions under a
changing climate and should consider working with
other states and partners to monitor species and habitats
across their entire range.
• Element Six (plans for revision) states should contact
the US Fish and Wildlife Service regional office early in
the revision process and refer to the 2007 FWS/AFWA
Revision Guidance letter to determine if a “major” or
“minor” revision will be required.
• Element Seven (coordinating with partners) states
should consider coordinating and collaborating with
partners since the scope, scale and uncertainty of climate
change impacts will require a high level of expertise
support and collaboration; agencies in coastal states
should consider addressing marine environments and/or
collaborating with sister agencies with jurisdiction over
marine species.
• Element Eight (public participation) states should
consider public participation planning since the potential
for controversy associated with climate change could
be high; strive to improve understanding of the impacts
to wildlife and gain public support or acceptance for
revising your Wildlife Action Plan; use terms that are
tested with the public like “safeguarding wildlife” as
opposed to “wildlife adaption” and involve conservation
partners early during the public participation planning
process, but recognize there may not be agreement on
messages or approaches.
The case studies in chapter 3 provide examples of
the processes being used in several states to update their
Wildlife Action Plan.
Resources Section – Appendix
Finally the guidance document includes a resources
section that provides the reader with additional sources
of information on the topics discussed in the document.
The appendix includes the charter for the work group,
legislative text on state adaptation planning and the 2007
FWS/AFWA Revision Guidance Letter. The Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies will maintain a “living” and
expanded version of this document on its website to ensure
states have access to the most current information about
climate change planning and implementation.
iv
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Wildlife Action Plans Climate Change Guidance Document
Table of Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Chapter 1: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1)
Introduction
2)
Key components of adaptation strategies
3)
Planning and implementing wildlife adaptation strategies
4)
Key Recommendations
5)
Adaptation Case Studies
Chapter 2: Tools for Planning and Implementing Adaptation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.) Vulnerability Assessment
a. Introduction
b. Steps to Follow
c. Vulnerability Case Studies
2.) Adaptive Management
3.) Monitoring
CHAPTER 3: State Wildlife Action Plan Revision Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.)
Introduction
2.)
Summary of existing guidance documents
3.)
Climate change implications for Action Plan revision: The 8 Elements
4.)
Revision Process Case Studies
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
I. Work group charter
II. State natural resources adaptation text from HR 2454
III. US Fish and Wildlife Letter: National Advisory Acceptance Team – Guidance for Revisions
IV. Additional References, Resources and Training Tools
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Introduction
Overview
This document provides voluntary guidance that can be
used by state fish and wildlife agencies to better incorporate current and expected impacts of climate change on
wildlife and their habitats into Wildlife Action Plans. The
approaches and techniques described in this document
also will be useful in modifying other wildlife plans (e.g.
big game/upland game/migratory bird plans, joint venture
implementation plans, national fish habitat action plan,
etc.) to address climate change. The document provides an
overview of the information currently available on climate
change, tools that can be used to plan for and implement climate change adaptation, voluntary guidance and
case studies. The guidance document is divided into the
following chapters 1) Adaptation; 2) Tools for Adaptation;
3) Plan Revision Process; 4) References and Resources.
The guidance document will be a “living” document that
will be housed on the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies’ website and updated regularly with new information and resources as they become available. Climate
change is a complex and often politically-charged issue,
the decision about whether or not to revise Wildlife Action
Plans or other plans to address climate change, rest solely
with each state.
Climate Change and Wildlife Impacts
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 4th
Assessment Report (IPCC 2007) found that global climate
warming is “unequivocal” and largely attributable to
human activities. Despite the certainty that climate change
is currently underway and having an impact on natural
resources, there are still many unanswered questions about
how these climate effects will play out at local, state and
regional scales and how ecosystems will respond to those
changes.
According to the IPCC, global average temperatures
have risen by 1.5 ˚F and can be expected to rise another
2-11˚F by 2100, depending on future emission levels. The
effect this will have on the nation’s wildlife and ecosystems
will be dramatic. Although there is still uncertainty on
regional variations in climate change impact, it is likely
the nation’s fish and wildlife species and their habitats will
experience many of the following impacts:
l
l
Temperatures and precipitation changes will vary
regionally but will lead to changes in the water cycle
that will impact both aquatic and terrestrial species.
Extreme events such as floods, heat waves, droughts
and severe storms are expected to increase resulting in
increased wildfires, pests, diseases and invasive species that will alter habitat for many species.
l
l
Sea level rise will result in significant losses to coastal
wetlands and estuary habitats. Some regions will see
large shifts in their coastline due to increased sedimentation and/or coastal erosion. Ocean acidification will
impact marine life, particularly coral reef ecosystems.
With increasing temperatures, flora and fauna will migrate northward and/or to higher elevations to escape
warming conditions. For some species, the inability
or lack of opportunity to migrate to a more suitable
climate may lead to extinction or extirpation.
l
Temperature increases will alter seasons and fallthe
physiological processes associated with certain seasons.
This will result in phenological shifts which may cause
misalignment of food availability and reproduction.
l
Reduced snowpack and increased temperatures in streams,
rivers and lakes will contribute to decreased populations of
freshwater and anadromous fish such as salmon and trout
and altered flooding regimes that will affect spawning
and rearing habitat for many aquatic species.
Individual species and habitats will have very different
responses to climate change. Many species and habitats will
be negatively affected by climate change and will require a
special set of actions in order to ensure their survival. Some
species may benefit from a changing climate and could
expand their range or increase in abundance; requiring
a separate set of actions. In addition, the movement of
species will create new communities of species for which
there will be no previous examples and will require new
management regimes. Wildlife management plans will need
to reflect these changes and will likely need to be updated
on a more frequent basis. Climate change is a large and
growing threat to wildlife and natural systems, but it will
also exacerbate many existing threats. Efforts to address
climate change should not diminish the immediate need
to combat threats that are independent of climate change,
such as habitat loss, invasive species spread, pollution and
wildlife diseases. Our goal should be to sustain ecosystems
and viable wildlife populations regardless of the threat.
Wildlife Action Plan Revision
All states will be required to update their Wildlife
Action Plans by 2015, although some states have opted
for earlier revisions. Wildlife Action Plans may need to
be revised earlier or more frequently than anticipated to
account for changing climate. Climate change legislation
passed in the US House of Representatives in June 2009
would require each state to develop an adaptation strategy
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Introduction
and to incorporate that strategy into a revision of the state’s
Wildlife Action Plan (similar legislation is expected to be
considered by the US Senate). Under the House bill, states
would be required to revise their adaptation strategy every
five-years to be eligible for federal natural resource adaptation funding. Although revision of Wildlife Action Plans
for climate change is not currently required, starting the
revision process now can help states prepare for potential
climate change funding through federal appropriations
in and/or through funding that may become available if
Congress passes comprehensive climate change legislation.
States planning to revise their Wildlife Action Plan
should contact the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration State
Wildlife Grant Specialist in their USFWS regional office
at the beginning of the revision process. States may choose
to undertake a full revision/review of their plan or write an
addendum. Guidance can be found in the 2007 FWS/AFWA
Guidance Letter to determine if a revision would constitute
a major or minor revision. A major revision of a plan is a
significant change that includes changes to two or more
elements in the plan and/or a change to the list of species
of greatest conservation need (SGCN). For major revisions,
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
states will need to provide documentation describing how
the revision meets each of the required eight elements,
including an up-to-date public review process. Changes that
are not considered to be major will be considered minor
and will require that states simply submit a letter summarizing changes to the plan.
The chapters that follow provide information and
resources that could be used to update Wildlife Action
Plans and other management plans to address climate
change impacts. Chapter 1 introduces processes,
approaches and key concepts that can be used to develop
climate change adaptation strategies for fish and wildlife
management. Chapter 2 describes tools that may be useful
in developing, implementing and monitoring these plans.
Chapter 3 summarizes existing guidance for Wildlife
Action Plan development and discusses how addressing
climate change might affect the plan revision process. The
references and resources section provide citations and links
to additional information and the work group charter and
text on state adaption plans included in climate change
legislation passed in the US House of Representatives are
included in the appendices.
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Chapter 1: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES
Researchers are converging on the following interconnected steps to assist with climate change adaptation
planning and action:
l
Identify target species, habitats and/or ecological
systems;
l
Define management goals and objectives;
l
Assess potential impacts, opportunities and vulnerabilities arising from likely future scenarios of climate,
ecological conditions and other drivers;
l
Compile system/species-relevant management actions
and evaluate feasibility;
l
Implement adaptation strategies and monitor strategy
effectiveness;
l
Reiterate the process by continually reviewing
management objectives and actions, incorporate new
information and adjust conservation actions as needed.
Approaches to Climate Change Adaptations
l
Identify target species / systems
l
Define goals and objectives
AR
N
PL
A
ND L E
R
TE A
A
LU
re
inf
o
uate strategies as need
re-eval
ed
ADJUST
EV
A
Monitor & evaluate
strategy effectiveness
l
Assess impacts & opportunities
for plausible scenarios
AT
Compile relevant
adaptation actions &
evaluate feasibility
E
rm
atio
n, ta
rgets, e .
tc
D
l
N
l
E
I Tfor mo
Climate change adaptation planning and implementation
can be seen as a dynamic process, where tactics change
as needed to accommodate shifting management or social
priorities, updated ecological information or new data on
projected climate change. The uncertainty and complexity
of climate change can be paralyzing. A continuing or
phased iterative process allows users to overcome the
paralysis of uncertainty by alleviating the pressure to “get it
right” on the first attempt. It also allows for a gradual build
up in complexity that allows for making informed decisions
and implementing conservation actions.
rate
re-ite
Developing and implementing adaptation strategies will
involve looking at what we are currently doing to conserve
fish, wildlife and their habitats through the lens of
climate change and identifying which strategies should be
continued, which need to be significantly altered to avoid
negative consequences, which might only require minor
adjustments and which need to be reevaluated for urgency
and priority. It will also require looking at new approaches
and tools to determine what additional conservation
actions we should be taking in light of a changing climate.
Taking an adaptive approach to fish and wildlife conservation will be especially important under climate change,
given uncertainties and our evolving understanding of
how climate change will impact fish, wildlife, ecological
processes and ecosystems and the responses that will be
encountered.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) defines adaptation as the “adjustment in natural or
human systems in response to actual or expected climatic
stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits
beneficial opportunities”. In the context of fish and wildlife
conservation, climate change adaptation strategies can
include on-the-ground management actions, land and
water protection or regulations and policies that can be
done to minimize the negative impacts and capitalize on
opportunities brought about by climate change. An iterative and place-based approach to adaptation planning and
implementation allow managers to develop and implement
strategies based on incomplete or uncertain information
and adjust those strategies as needed based on monitoring
or new information. Climate change adaptation strategies will vary by region and/or ecosystem depending on
local/regional climate and ecological conditions and
social-political contexts that inform management decisions.
Therefore, it is important to develop feasible site-based and
target-based strategies.
O
This chapter provides guidance on how to develop climate
change adaptation strategies – strategies that will help
conserve fish and wildlife species and their habitats and
ecosystems as climate conditions change. Key concepts,
approaches and processes are discussed, but just as each
state faces a unique set of climate impacts, each will take
a somewhat different approach to finding ways to adapt
to those changes. To illustrate the diversity of strategies,
several case studies demonstrate how states have begun to
implement wildlife adaptation strategies.
l
Implement adaptation
strategies
Figure 1. An iterative approach to adaptation planning and
implementation (Adapted from The Heinz Center (2008), Glick et
al. (2009), Heller and Zavaleta (2009), Cross et al. (in review)).
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 1: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies
In this chapter, we highlight key recommended steps for
moving through this iterative process and developing and
implementing climate change adaptation strategies that will
help conserve fish and wildlife species and their habitats
and ecosystems as climate conditions change (Table 1).
We also highlight several case studies to demonstrate
how particular projects have dealt with these issues while
identifying and implementing wildlife adaptation strategies.
Table 1: Recommended steps for developing and implementing
adaptation strategies
1. Engage diverse partners and coordinate across state and regional boundaries
The large-scale nature of climate change effects, combined with the importance of coordinating
management at a large ecologically meaningful scale, suggests that coordination within and between
state and federal agencies will need to improve. Fish and wildlife agencies should strive to involve
diverse stakeholders throughout the development and implementation of adaptation strategies.
2.Take action on strategies effective under both current and future climates
Where the impacts of climate change are uncertain, agencies should focus on conservation actions
likely to be beneficial regardless of future climate conditions. These can include reducing nonclimate stressors, managing for ecological function and protection of diverse species assemblages
and maintaining and restoring connectivity.
3. Clearly define goals and objectives in the context of future climate conditions
As climate changes, it may be difficult or even impossible to achieve conservation goals that are
dependent on static conditions. Goals and objectives should therefore be informed by projected
future climate conditions and explicitly address whether they aim to resist the impacts of climate
change, promote resilience and/or facilitate changing conditions.
4. Consider appropriate spatial and temporal scales
The scale of adaptation planning should be based on that of natural systems and anticipated climate
impacts. While management of wildlife tends to happen at local or state levels and over relatively
short planning horizons, changes in climate will generally occur across very large scales and across
entire ranges of wildlife and habitat types.
5. Consider several likely/probable scenarios of future climate and ecological conditions
It is important to assess the effects of climate change over multiple climate scenarios. Comparing
conservation actions identified for each future scenario will highlight those actions likely to be
effective across a range of scenarios along with those that may be effective under an individual one.
6. Use adaptive management to help cope with climate change uncertainties
Adaptive management is an effective way to make decisions in the context of incomplete
information, uncertainty, risk and change. Adaptive management can help managers see if adaptation
strategies are having their intended impact.
Recommendations for Developing and
Implementing Adaptaion Strategies
1. Engage diverse partners and coordinate across state
and regional boundaries
The broad spatial and temporal scales associated
with climate change suggest that management efforts
that are coordinated on at least the regional scale will
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
likely lead to greater success. Greater coordination both
within and among state and federal agencies, researchers,
NGO’s and industry (e.g. renewable energy) to meet
adaptation challenges is needed. A nested approach,
where responsibilities are split among the national,
regional, state and local levels, may be most effective.
For example, the need to do vulnerability assessments
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
could overwhelm a single state agency’s resources and
may be better conducted with partners at the regional
scale, then translated into place-specific actions at the
local or state scale. Similarly, species-specific or habitatspecific management efforts may benefit from range-wide
coordination.
Agencies should aim to involve a wide array of stakeholders, including the interested public, local experts,
neighboring states and other agencies throughout the
process of developing and implementing adaptation strategies. Interested stakeholders may also include natural
resource-based industries such as agriculture, forestry,
hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, tourism and other
recreational user groups whose interests will be affected
by climate change. States should consider looking for
partnership opportunities with climate change researchers
at universities and research organizations and with state,
federal and private organizations.
Adaptation strategies will be most successful when they
build on existing structures for collaboration. For example,
a range-wide species or habitat management plan that
crosses state boundaries can provide an effective coordination structure for considering climate change adaptation
strategies. Range-wide management will be particularly
important for species that respond to climate change by
moving across state or national borders.
2. Take action on strategies effective under both current
and future climates
Climate change is already affecting some species
and habitats and there is an urgent need to develop and
implement management techniques based on the science
available today. Some adaptation activities can begin even
before a vulnerability analysis is completed. Many management strategies currently used to ensure viable species and
habitats will be increasingly relevant in a climate changed
environment and sticking to those strategies will be increasingly important. It is recommended that priority be given to
conservation actions that are likely to be beneficial regardless of future climate conditions. These actions include the
following:
a. Reducing the impact of non-climate threats/stressors
Because of the interconnectedness of climate and natural
systems, climate change effects amplify long-standing
ecological problems such as land use change, pollution,
disruption of flood and fire regimes, habitat fragmentation
and the spread of invasive species. Dealing with these
existing stressors is one of the most valuable and least risky
strategies available for climate change adaptation, in part
because of the large existing body of knowledge about their
impacts and solutions.
b. Managing for ecological function and protection of
biodiversity
Natural systems are supported by basic processes such
as fire and flood and by the diversity of life at all scales.
As past goals designed around restoring or maintaining
historic conditions become difficult or impossible to
achieve, conservation actions should focus on maintaining
and restoring ecosystem processes (such as fire regimes
and hydrological cycles) and conserving as many native
and/or desired non-native plants and animals as possible.
For example, efforts to restore complexity and function
to floodplains will benefit many fish and wildlife species
regardless of future climate conditions. Translating these
ecosystem approaches into key habitats essential to the
conservation of SGCN will be an important part of revising
Wildlife Action Plans.
One approach could be to protect a resilient network
of conservation ‘stages’, for whatever composition of
biodiversity may reside there in the future (adapted from
M. Anderson (in press)). This may involve identification
and protection of a suite of places that will likely be critical
to wildlife in the future. In a simplified example, breeding
habitat for piping plovers might be characterized as
dunes, beaches and shorelines on coarse sands and gravel.
Conserving a network of these settings across a spectrum
of latitudes and elevations maintains an important stage
for many species, under both current and future conditions.
These geophysical settings will need to be of sufficient
size to recover from disturbances and maintain space for
the breeding requirements of component species. Further
actions may be needed to enhance the resilience of the
ecosystems by working at regional scales on hydrologic
cycles and disturbance regimes, considering high quality
source habitats and promoting connectivity across habitats
for dispersal and migration.
c. Maintaining and restoring landscape and habitat
connectivity
In fish and wildlife management, the ability of individuals and populations to move across the landscape
has been important to maintaining biological diversity.
Fragmentation of landscapes by changing land uses has
restricted these movements. Managing species and their
habitats in the context of climate change will require an
increased and ambitious emphasis on connectivity. That
will include the connectivity of core or crucial conservation
areas as defined by each state with lands that are managed
for multiple purposes (e.g., working landscapes) to enable
species to shift towards more suitable climates (e.g., higher
elevations or latitudes).
Wildlife linkages and buffer zones around core habitat
will play an important role in this approach but will not be
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 1: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies
sufficient, as species distributions and abundances change
in unpredictable ways. Habitat connectivity at the scale
needed for climate change adaptation will require strategic
planning and investment and meaningful collaboration
among public and private parties (see Adaptation Case
Study 1).
3. Clearly define goals and objectives in the context of
future climate conditions
Both climate change adaptation and fish and wildlife
management require a clear statement of goals and objectives. Adaptation goals and objectives generally fall within
one or more of the following broad approaches (Table 2):
1) increased resistance; 2) promoting resilience; 3) enabling
ecosystem responses; and 4) realigning restoration and
management activities to reflect changing conditions.
Focusing on increasing resistance and resilience may
be possible for some target species or systems, or under
relatively moderate climate changes. As the magnitude of
climate change increases, it will be necessary to identify
conservation actions that focus on responding to changes
and providing transitions to new states or systems. It will
also be necessary to realign restoration and management
activities that are currently based on historic conditions
and range of variability, to reflect changing conditions. A
sole emphasis on trying to build ecological resistance may
be unachievable and could result in missed opportunities
if managers do not plan for new species and ecological
systems that may move into an area. Focusing on resistance
is likely to prove a poor use of funding and resources over
the long term. Realistically, however, some combination of
these types of goals will likely be needed to meet broader
conservation objectives in a changing climate. Adaptation
case studies 2, 3 and 4 illustrate that different goals can
be combined and that in some situations the lines between
these approaches can be unclear.
Table 2. General approaches to management of natural resources under climate change, with example
management goals (adapted from Millar et al. (2007) and the USFS on-line Climate Change Resource
Center at http://gis.fs.fed.us/ccrc/).
Management
Definition
Approach
Increase RESISTANCE Forestall undesired effects of change
to change
and/or manage ecosystems so they
are better able to resist changes
resulting from climate change.
Promote RESILIENCE Manage for “viable” ecosystems to
to change
increase the likelihood that they
will accommodate gradual changes
related to climate and tend to return
toward a prior condition after
disturbance.
Enable ecosystems to
Intentionally accommodate change
RESPOND to change rather than resist it by actively or
passively facilitating ecosystems to
respond as environmental changes
accrue.
REALIGN management and restoration
approaches to reflect
current and future
dynamics
Rather than restoring habitats to
historic conditions, or managing for
historic range of variability— realign
“restoration” and management
approaches to current and anticipated future conditions.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Example Goal/Objective
Maintain current distribution of
coldwater-dependent bull trout in
freshwater systems, despite long-term
temperature increases.
Thin and strategically protect eastern
Cascade forests to improve resilience
to fire and drought (See Adaptation
Case Study 2).
Ensure that coastal ecosystems
continue to support many species
and complex natural communities,
sequester large volumes of carbon
and provide human ecosystem service
as they are transformed by sea level
rise (See Adaptation Case Study 3).
Create monitoring systems and
conduct future modeling to inform
restoration activities so that restoration can be realigned to reflect
changing and future projected conditions (See Adaptation Case Study 4).
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Identifying the target species, communities, ecosystems, or ecological processes to be addressed by climate
change adaptation planning and action is a critical part of
identifying goals and objectives. Targets might be selected
because of existing priorities (e.g. species or ecosystems
with high economic or recreation value) or because of
regulatory requirements (e.g. endangered species). Targets
may be selected because a species or habitat may be known
or suspected to be vulnerable to changing climate conditions
(e.g. polar bears). Some targets may fit both descriptions—a
current conservation concern that is also known to be
susceptible to climate change. All of these reasons are valid
for selecting a target to be addressed through climate change
adaptation planning. The challenge is deciding where to
start since there may be hundreds of potential targets of
conservation concern in a state or region. Managers should
not be paralyzed because of uncertainty about which species
or habitats will be most affected. Instead, they should
recognize that additional targets can be developed and added
in later plan updates. Both targets and management goals
and objectives will likely need to be adjusted as the science
improves and new data becomes available.
In many cases, wildlife adaptation will motivate
managers to use a more habitat or ecosystem-centered
approach to conservation. Species conservation will
become more challenging as habitats change, resulting in
new and sometimes unfamiliar combinations of plants and
animals. For example, a species historically found within
one state may shift partially or wholly to another state,
or shifts in vegetation may reduce the viability of species
or populations that are common today. Species conservation efforts that focus on identifying and protecting those
habitats most likely to persist as climate changes will likely
be better investments than those that depend on habitats
which are likely to become unsuitable. An alternative
approach would be to select an ecological process (e.g. fire or river flows) or ecosystem (e.g. - wetlands, sagebrush
steppe, or alpine meadows) as a target and then consider
consequences to multiple species dependent on that process
or ecosystem (see Adaptation Case Study 5). A balance will
need to be struck between agencies’ species conservation
requirements and the need to manage for variability and
uncertainty at the habitat or ecosystem level. A revision
of Wildlife Action Plans will require that both species and
habitats be considered. Given the different vulnerabilities
of species and systems, conservation targets should be
prioritized by their relative urgency, sensitivity and the
capacity to achieve desired goals.
4. Consider appropriate spatial and temporal scales
While some species are currently managed in a coordinated range-wide manner, in most instances the manage-
ment of wildlife and habitats is done at the state or local
level. In addition planning horizons tend to be relatively
short (e.g. 5 years). Changes in climate will occur at very
large scales, across entire ranges of wildlife and vegetation types. In most cases, the scale of planning should
be based on that of natural systems and the anticipated
climate impacts rather than on political boundaries, so that
states do not develop redundant or contradictory strategies.
Developing maps or other representations of shared conservation priorities may help some states manage species
and habitats at the appropriate scale to cope with climate
impacts.
The effects of climate change are already apparent on
some landscapes, but more and different changes will
emerge and develop over time. These changes are expected
to accelerate through at least the next century. The appropriate time scale for climate planning will vary among
projects. There is much more certainty about the impacts of
climate over the next 20-30 years and a planning horizon of
about 30 years is often considered reasonable for climatesensitive projects. Other time scales may be important
for projects with a shorter or longer life span (e.g. facility
infrastructure). Beyond that period, the magnitude and
type of changes will be greatly affected by greenhouse
gas emissions now and in the immediate future. States
should consider how this type of planning horizon and
the increasing level of uncertainty over longer timeframes
affects plans to revise and keep Wildlife Action Plans
current and relevant.
5. Consider several likely/probable scenarios of future
climate and ecological conditions
Building adaptation strategies around a limited set of
likely future scenarios of climate and ecological conditions
is a useful tool for making decisions when uncertainty is
high and uncontrollable (Peterson et al. 2003). This can be
done through a formal scenario planning process or could
be done by simply anticipating a reasonable range of future
conditions. In developing future climate scenarios, the
emphasis should be on identifying what multiple futures
could look like, rather than trying to predict exactly what
the future will look like. They can be relatively simplistic
(e.g. the local climate may become increasingly warm
and dry or it may be increasingly warm and wet) or more
precise (e.g. the local area may see 1ºF, 3ºF, or 5ºF of
warming by the year 2050). These scenarios can then be
used to examine impacts and opportunities facing target
systems and species.
Information on climate change vulnerabilities and
opportunities can help identify which adaptation strategies
are most relevant to the species or system being targeted
for adaptation action. Science and management experts can
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 1: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies
then assist with translating those strategies into feasible site
and target-based actions for each future climate scenario
being considered. Not all actions will be equally feasible or
desirable, so an evaluation of the tradeoffs (e.g. costs versus
relative contribution to achieving a particular management objective, and the likelihood the actions will have
similar utility across climate scenarios) will be necessary
to identify priority actions to be implemented. This type of
evaluation can inform prioritization of actions identified in
Wildlife Action Plans.
Highlighting how climate change impacts and opportunities facing a particular target ecosystem or species might
vary across multiple future scenarios allows us to consider
whether management responses would also vary. Some
management actions may be consistently recommended
across future climate scenarios, while others may differ.
A comparison of management actions identified for each
future climate scenario will highlight those actions that
are likely to be effective across a range of scenarios, along
with those actions that may be effective under a particular
scenario, but less appropriate under others. This process
might include recognizing how resource goals will be
affected and identifying management actions that can help
us achieve our conservation goals. It is important that we
identify decision-making approaches that make use of
the best-available science and do not postpone important
decisions while waiting for improvements in climate
modeling.
6. Use adaptive management to help cope with climate
change uncertainties
Adaptive management is an effective method for
decision-making in the context of incomplete information,
uncertainty, risk and change. Adaptive management is a
form of “learning by doing” that can be used to gradually
build the information needed for good decision-making
without postponing needed actions. Management decisions
are designed to test hypotheses and provide data to inform
future decisions. In the context of climate change, adaptive
management can help managers see whether their adaptation strategies are working. More information on adaptive
management is available in the “Tools” chapter.
Case Studies
Following are examples of projects that are underway
to address climate change. These projects range from ”no
regrets” conservation activities (i.e., actions that meet other
needs but can also address climate change) and activities
that were developed to specifically respond to climate
change. Updates of these projects and examples of new
case studies will made available at www.fishwildlife.org.
Adaptation Case Study 1: Re-establishing connectivity to enable fish movement
under current and future climate in Kentucky
© ryan oster PHOTO
The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources,
Harrison County local government, US Fish and Wildlife
Service and The Nature Conservancy are working together
to reestablish connectivity in the West Creek of the Licking
River watershed by removing a low-water bridge. The area
is identified as a Priority Conservation Area and a Mussel
Conservation Area in Kentucky’s Wildlife Action Plan. While
this project was not developed as a result of examining
specific climate change data, maintaining resilience of the
river system as the climate changes is recognized as an
important project goal. Many tributaries of the Licking River
have lost connectivity to the main channel due to obstructions such as dams and poorly designed culverts, resulting
in restrictions to fish migration and mussel reproduction.
Improved connectivity at this scale would promote fish
movement whether rainfall increases or decreases through
time.
Contact: Danna Baxley, State Wildlife Grants Research Coordinator, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources,
Phone (502) 564-3400, E-mail [email protected]
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Adaptation Case Study 2: Promoting resilience: Washington Tapash Sustainable
Forest Collaborative
The Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative is a partnership between The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife, the Yakama Nation and the U.S. Forest Service. The group’s primary goal is to manage three
million acres of Eastern Cascades forests with the goal of strengthening the landscape’s resistance and
resilience to the long-term effects of climate change (e.g. hotter, drier and longer fire seasons). Using
TNC’s Conservation Action Planning methodology, the partners conducted an assessment of the viability
and critical threats facing key habitats within a 300,000 acre landscape of eastern Cascade forests. The
assessment indicated that climate change is a major threat facing the forests. An acquisition strategy will
be used that focuses on connectivity of landscapes to allow natural and prescribed disturbance processes
to persist. Climate change has become an important prioritization factor in deciding where acquisitions are most likely to improve climate adaptation. The Tapash Collaborative is implementing several
place-based adaptation strategies that will increase the number of acres restored through cooperative
controlled burns and thinning projects. Selectively culling smaller trees will increase forest resiliency
by creating fewer, bigger, more fire-resistant trees. Open patch habitats within the forest are critical for
a variety of species and are naturally maintained by fire Selective thinning will help restore the natural
pattern of more frequent, less severe fires that benefit and balance the ecosystem.
Contact: Betsy Bloomfield, Eastern Cascades Forests Program Director, The Nature Conservancy, Phone
(509) 248-6672, E-mail [email protected]
Adaptation Case Study 3: Enabling ecological systems to respond to changes:
the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula Climate Adaptation Project
The North Carolina Chapter of The Nature Conservancy and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are working
with other federal and state agencies to ensure that as the ecosystems of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula
are transformed by changing climate and rising seas, they are transformed into ecosystems that still support
many species and complex natural communities, sequester large volumes of carbon and provide human
ecosystem services. To meet this management goal, TNC and the USFWS are planning and implementing a
comprehensive set of strategies on the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge to abate the effects of climate
disruption. High-resolution models developed for TNC show that up to 469,000 acres on the AlbemarlePamlico Peninsula could be flooded by as little as a 12-inch increase in sea level and that nearly 750,000 acres
could be flooded by a 20-inch rise. Under these scenarios , many unique and diverse ecosystems on the
Peninsula will be put at risk. Since the sea level model used for this project was unable to account for
saltwater intrusion into the wetland interior and subsidence due to degradation of peat soils, the project
coordinators anticipate inundation to be much faster than what the models indicate. As a result, managers
developed an overarching goal of slowing the impacts of sea-level rise on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula to
avoid a catastrophic shift from pocosin/forested and wetland/brackish marsh habitat to open water.
The following activities were implemented starting in the summer of 2009: 1) Hydrologic restoration
using water control structures equipped with flashboard risers and tide gates to rehydrate the peat soils
while maintaining an appropriate water table and to prevent further saltwater intrusion into the interior;
2) Oyster reef restoration using marl (calcium carbonate fossil rock) to construct shoreline oyster reefs
along the Peninsula to provide settlement habitat for naturally occurring oyster larvae and buffer the
shoreline from eroding waves and storms; and 3) Restoration of wetland vegetation by planting salt/
flood-tolerant trees (bald cypress and black gum note: green ash will no longer be included ) in experimental plots to determine their growth and survival on peat soils. Adaptation efforts will also include
establishing corridors for species migration inland and upland.
10
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 1: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies
Contact: Brian Boutin, Climate Adaptation Project Director, The Nature Conservancy, Phone (252) 4412525, E-mail [email protected]
Adaptation Case Study 4: Realigning to current and future conditions: Restoring
floodplain forests in Missouri and Tennessee
The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV) is a conservation forum in which the private, state
and federal conservation community develops a shared vision for bird conservation in the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV). The JV Board established a goal of restoring 1 million acres of bottomland forest
that will reduce forest fragmentation in a largely agricultural landscape and buffer floods with natural
vegetation that stores carbon. Through state agency driven projects, thousands of acres of habitat have
been acquired and restored in focal areas such as the Lower Obion River Project Area, identified by the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and River Bends Conservation Opportunity Area, identified by
the Missouri Department of Conservation. Both states are presently working to restore 2,340 acres of
bottomland forest and canebrake habitats in the LMV.
The proposed conservation actions for this project will restore resiliency of forests, but they also
set the stage for realignment. Information management and modeling is designed to align restoration
with current conditions, but also to realign to respond to future changes in the LMV. The LMVJV has
processes in place to evaluate and respond to forest and hydrology changes. Bird monitoring related to
species-habitat models and predictions based on potential natural vegetation under a changing climate
will allow for a continuous system-relevant evaluation. Conservation goals and objectives are climateinformed and promote building resilience into a forested ecosystem that will change through time.
Contact: Dennis Figg, Wildlife Programs Supervisor, Missouri Department of Conservation, Phone (573)
522-4115 ext 3309, E-mail [email protected]
Adaptation Case Study 5: Place-based climate change adaptation planning in two
Montana ecosystems
In December 2008, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, World Wildlife Fund, the Wildlife Conservation
Society and the National Wildlife Federation held a workshop to assess the implications of climate
change for fish and wildlife management in two ecosystems in the state: the Yellowstone River and
sagebrush steppe habitats. The workshop brought together science and management experts to discuss
the impacts and opportunities of multiple future climate scenarios on a range of game and non-game
fish and wildlife species in those ecosystems. Participants also identified potential management actions
that would allow Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to achieve objectives related to conserving current
native species in those areas, conserving habitat for species that find those areas suitable in the future
and maintaining recreational hunting and angling opportunities. Several management responses that were
discussed are similar to current management activities in these two systems, but with an added sense
of urgency or priority (e.g., securing senior water rights and agreements, restoring riparian vegetation,
removing non-native species, closer coordination with federal agencies that manage publicly-owned
sagebrush steppe habitat). Other management actions considered represented slight or even significant
adjustments in agency practice (e.g., reintroduction of beaver to increase high elevation water storage,
monitoring sagebrush habitat condition and extent).
Contact: T.O. Smith, Strategic Planning Bureau Chief, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Phone (406) 4443889, E-mail [email protected]
For a complete workshop summary: https://online.nwf.org/site/DocServer/FINAL-WorkshopReport.
pdf?docID=7441
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
11
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Chapter 2: TOOLS FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING ADAPTATION ACTIONS
Chapter 1 described several approaches and strategies
for climate change adaptation. Some of these are closely
aligned with past work in conserving fish and wildlife
species and habitats and familiar tools can be used to
implement them. Many existing policies, planning
processes and management actions will also help support
climate change adaptation and will continue to be relevant
and useful. In some cases, however, the goals, objectives,
or priorities of wildlife managers may change in response
to current or future climate change, or the actions needed
to support a species and habitat may shift with changing
conditions. This chapter examines three tools that combine
old and new means to address some of the unique challenges of climate change: vulnerability assessment, adaptive management and targeted monitoring.
Vulnerability Assessments: Describing
Ecosystem Responses to Climate Change
This section describes the process of assessing the
vulnerability of species and habitats to climate change,
outlines some of the trade-offs involved in different assessment methods and gives an overview of what a vulnerability assessment can and cannot do. Identifying and
meeting the adaptation needs of species and ecosystems
requires an understanding not only of current and future
climate impacts but also of the likely responses of species
and habitats to these changes. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) defines vulnerability as “the
degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to
cope with, adverse effects of climate change.” Vulnerability
consists of the following:
l
Exposure to climate change (i.e., the magnitude of the
changes experienced);
l
Sensitivity of the species or system to these changes;
and
l
The capacity to adapt to these changes.
A variety of factors influence the overall vulnerability
of biological systems to climate change. These may
include the following: 1) specific biological traits that
limit adaptive capacity; 2) physical barriers to dispersal or
other adaptation methods; 3) high exposure or sensitivity
to specific climate impacts because of distribution or
biological factors; 4) exposure to existing or future nonclimate stressors. For example, species that are already
in decline because of habitat loss or other factors could
12
be more at risk in a changing climate (greater sensitivity
and less adaptive capacity). Likewise, habitat types that
are found at or near sea level are much more likely to be
affected by rising sea levels (high exposure). High-elevation species that are dependent on snow or cold temperatures may be vulnerable to range contraction because of
rising temperatures (high exposure, high sensitivity and
low adaptive capacity).
Human responses may also increase the vulnerability of
natural systems. For example, rising sea levels may prompt
the construction of new sea walls or other structures that
may protect human property but limit the ability of estuarine ecosystems to migrate inland. Of course, some species
or habitats may also benefit from climate change. This
“flip side” of vulnerability merits attention, and is often
poorly addressed in adaptation planning.
Why Assess Vulnerability?
Understanding which species and habitats are vulnerable and why is key to developing effective adaptation
strategies that will lessen climate change impacts to these
resources. This process is often referred to as a vulnerability assessment. The goal of a vulnerability assessment
is to describe these three elements – exposure, sensitivity
and the capacity to adapt to climate change – in a way that
supports better management and decision-making now
and in the future. A vulnerability assessment provides the
scientific basis for developing climate adaptation strategies.
It combines information about future climate scenarios (i.e.,
exposure to climate impacts) with ecological information
about climate sensitivity and adaptive capacity to provide
an idea of how a species or system is likely to respond
under the projected climate change conditions. The relative
vulnerability of species or habitats can then be used to set
goals, determine management priorities and inform decisions about appropriate adaptation strategies.
Vulnerability assessments do not have to be conducted,
but they can be a useful tool in developing adaptation
strategies. Assessments should be targeted to meet specific
information needs and should match the unique priorities,
goals and resources of the state or states involved in the
assessment. The goal of a vulnerability assessment is to
describe the degree to which relevant species and systems
are susceptible to and unable to cope with the adverse
effects of climate change. It may quantify the level of
vulnerability and the factors that create it or it may simply
describe which of the target species and systems are
expected to be most vulnerable and why.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 2: Tools for Planning and Implementing Adaptaion Actions
l
l
l
Examples of questions to address in a vulnerability
assessment include the following:
l
Which expected climate impacts will be most or least
significant for a target species or system?
Which species, populations, habitats, or ecosystems
are most vulnerable to climate change?
l
Which impacts can be managed by increasing the adaptive
capacity of species or systems? Which are unavoidable?
l
Where the details of future changes are uncertain, which
of the likely scenarios are the most or least harmful?
l
What species might be expected to move into the area
under future climate conditions? What new assemblages might emerge?
Which are less vulnerable or are likely to benefit from
climate change?
Which are most vulnerable to climate extremes,
climate variability and/or changes in average temperature or precipitation?
The steps below outline a suggested process for conducting a vulnerability assessment, and the
sections that follow describe a range of alternative strategies for building a useful and practical
assessment process. There are many ways of assessing climate-related vulnerability and change,
and states or other groups that choose to conduct a vulnerability assessment should develop a
method that meets their specific goals and needs.
Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change: Suggested Steps
1. Determine the scope of the assessment
Focus on achievable results, meeting specific information needs
Consider analyzing habitat types and a subset of species
Decide on an appropriate timeframe and spatial scale
Identify key products and users
Identify limitations and potential partners
2. Collect relevant climate and ecological data
Use a method that can take advantage of available data
Reach out to internal and external experts
Build on existing work whenever possible
3. Describe vulnerability qualitatively and/or quantitatively
Provide information needed for decision-making
Consider not only what is vulnerable but also why and how
Highlight opportunities to increase adaptive capacity
4. Start outlining adaptation priorities and strategies
Continue involving stakeholders and partners
Use results to build consensus on strategies
1. Determine the scope of the assessment
Each state will be affected by a different combination of
climate change impacts, each will see different responses
to climate change in biological systems, and each will
have to determine which impacts and responses to address
through a vulnerability assessment. For example, a state
may choose to focus on the impacts of sea level rise and
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
increasing temperatures, especially if precipitation projections are highly uncertain. Alternately, a state might choose
to address the full array of climate trends but focus on the
responses of several species or systems that are expected
to be especially vulnerable (e.g. high-elevation meadows;
cold-dependent freshwater species) or on species that are
expected to adapt by shifting to new areas.
13
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Levels of assessments
Most states will not have sufficient resources to conduct
an exhaustive, species-by-species vulnerability assessment
for each impact. Even where funding is available, creation
of a detailed formal vulnerability assessment should not
delay efforts to begin designing and implementing climate
change adaptation strategies. Where time and resources are
limited, even broad conclusions on the relative vulnerability of different species or habitats can help in developing
and prioritizing adaptation strategies.
In determining the scope of the assessment, building the
information needed for making management decisions and
developing specific adaptation strategies should be given
first priority. The quality and quantity of information available, the scope of the existing Wildlife Action Plan and the
relative importance of different climate impacts may also
affect this decision. Identifying key products or steps early
on in the process will help both in the budgeting process
and in ensuring that the assessment makes efficient use of
the available time and resources. These products or steps
may include creation of maps, holding meetings/workshops, creating internal/external publications, etc.
Types of assessments
Vulnerability assessments may focus on individual
species, groups of species, habitat types, or ecoregions
as the level of analysis. In most cases, considering some
combination of species and habitats or ecoregions will be
most useful. For example, an agency may wish to assess the
climate change vulnerability of broad categories of habitat
types across its jurisdiction as well as examining a subset
of species more closely. These might include keystone
species, species of greatest conservation need, species for
which a special management directive exists, or species
suspected to be sensitive to climate change. Alternatively,
an assessment could examine fish and wildlife in broad
taxonomic categories and then focus in on listed species or
habitats that are especially threatened within those broad
categories. Identifying target species, habitats, or ecosystems is a significant step in conducting a vulnerability
assessment.
Scales and timeframes
Clearly defining the spatial scale and timeframe of the
assessment early can help keep the process as efficient as
possible. If an assessment is conducted at the state level,
it is important to consider how it will take into account
species that cross state boundaries, including species that
may move into or out of the state or region under future
climate conditions. In some cases, conducting a multi-state
vulnerability assessment or coordinating with neighboring
states can help resolve these problems. It may be helpful
14
to participate in a formal assessment at the regional scale,
to be supplemented with less formal or less detailed statelevel assessments. States may be able to look to federal
partners for help with multi-state assessments.
In determining the appropriate timeframe for an assessment, consider that near-term projections of climate change
scenarios tend to have a higher degree of certainty and
greater detail than those that look further out. This is the
case because it is difficult to anticipate how greenhouse
gas emissions might change in the future, while the climate
change we experience over the next few decades will be
primarily caused by past emissions. As a result, 30 years
is a common planning horizon when considering future
climate impacts. It may be appropriate for some vulnerability assessments to consider a different timeframe,
especially when a project being considered will have a
lifespan longer than 30 years. However, an assessment that
looks further into the future should take into consideration
the high level of uncertainty involved with long-term
climate projections.
2. Collect relevant climate and ecological data
Two kinds of data are needed to assess vulnerability; 1)
information on expected climate impacts and 2) information on ecological responses in the species or habitats
considered. Climate data may or may not need to be
“downscaled,” or translated from the global to the regional,
state, or local scale, for analysis. The general circulation
models (GCMs) that are typically used to describe future
climate conditions are global in scale and do not show
sufficient variation at the scale of a state or region to be
useful in planning. However, acquisition of downscaled
climate data can be costly and difficult to access and
use. The Climate Wizard tool recently developed by The
Nature Conservancy, the University of Washington and the
University of Southern Mississippi provides access to some
downscaled climate information at no cost.
Caution should be used when working with downscaled
climate data, since the uncertainties involved in projecting
future climate conditions can be considerable. The resolution and presentation of downscaled climate data may make
them appear more accurate than they actually are, especially to audiences that are less aware of the weaknesses
of climate models. Vulnerability Case Study 1 provides an
example of a vulnerability assessment based on downscaled
climate data and modeling that provides clear assessments
of uncertainty for these products.
When time or resources are limited
A less detailed vulnerability assessment using general
knowledge of the expected trends may be sufficient when
time is limited. For example, a state might assess the
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 2: Tools for Planning and Implementing Adaptaion Actions
vulnerability of different species or habitats under conditions that are warmer and drier than current conditions,
without specifying a quantitative estimate of those changes.
It may also be useful to consider two or more future climate
scenarios to help accommodate the uncertainty inherent in
climate projections. For example, in an area where precipitation trends are highly uncertain, a state might choose to
consider two scenarios, one warmer and wetter and one
warmer and drier. Adaptation strategies that are robust to
multiple likely climate change scenarios would be considered “no-regrets” strategies.
When data are limited
The availability of detailed data on ecological responses
may be limited. Future climate conditions will be so unlike
historical conditions that predicting how species and
systems will respond is a significant challenge. When the
influence of climate conditions on habitat requirements
or other range determinants are known, modeling may
help determine where species movements or extinctions
are likely. Where sufficient information is not available
or where the focus is on identifying general trends instead
of developing detailed models, an expert panel approach
may be more appropriate. Agency biologists, partners from
other resource agencies, non-profit groups and university
researchers may have a good understanding of the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of target species and systems,
even when published data are not available. Information
from both internal and external experts can supplement
other available sources of data. Vulnerability Case Study 2
provides an example of an expert panel approach to vulnerability assessment.
Collaborating with partners
In collecting information on vulnerability, it is important
to build on existing work. This approach both limits the
strain on agency resources and ensures that the vulnerability assessment and the adaptation strategies that develop
from it are as transparent and inclusive as possible. State
fish and wildlife agencies should consider participating
in multi-state collaborations, partnering with other agencies to create a joint assessment, or seeking out funding to
hire professionals with needed skill sets. In many cases,
external partners will also benefit from the products of the
assessment.
3. Describe vulnerability in a qualitative (and if possible
quantitative) context
A wide variety of traits and processes can make species
more or less vulnerable to climate change. The effects of
a changing climate tend to exacerbate the effects of other
threats, such as habitat loss or pressure from invasive
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
species that may have already made a species susceptible
to extinction. The IUCN has described five categories
of biological traits that make species more vulnerable to
climate change:
l
Specialized habitat or microhabitat requirements;
l
Narrow environmental tolerances or thresholds that are
likely to be exceeded under climate change;
l
Dependence on specific environmental triggers or
cues that are likely to be disrupted by climate change
(phenology – e.g. rainfall or temperature cues for
migration, breeding, or hibernation);
l
Dependence on interactions between species that are
likely to be disrupted;
l
Inability or poor ability to disperse quickly or to
colonize a new, more suitable range.
Recognize uncertainty
Whether utilizing downscaled climate data and complex
ecological models or relying on general regional trends and
an expert panel approach, it is important that the results
of a vulnerability assessment clearly reflect the level of
uncertainty involved. This can be accomplished through
technical estimates of uncertainty or expert-based estimates
of confidence levels. For example, the IPCC uses a system
that describes quantitative estimates of confidence in accessible terms, ranging from “very low confidence” (less than
1 out of 10 chance) to “very high confidence” (at least 9
out of 10 chance). The case studies at the end of the chapter
outline several approaches for describing uncertainties.
4. Start outlining adaptation priorities and strategies
Once a vulnerability assessment is completed, the next
step is to use the information to develop specific adaptation strategies and establish a decision-making process.
Participants can start outlining the priorities and strategies
that the results indicate. In particular, vulnerability assessments that include input from external experts and stakeholders can be used as a forum to begin developing goals
and objectives that will follow logically from the information gathered. The chapter on adaptation strategies provides
guidance on how to move from vulnerability assessment to
adaptation planning and action.
Coping with new species or systems
Because many vulnerability assessments focus on the
species or systems that are already present, they often do
not consider species or systems that may move to a new
area as climate changes. Assessments that focus solely
on existing species and systems in an area may result
in adaptation strategies that attempt to resist ecological
change and keep current assemblages intact. It must be
15
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
acknowledged that some changes will be unavoidable and
uncontrollable. Vulnerability assessments should include a
consideration of where species and ecosystems may move
in the future.
Complexity within a species or system assessment
Often, we look at a species’ or system’s vulnerability to
changing climate in one place at a time. For example, is a
species vulnerable if it is sensitive and negatively exposed
to climate change in one section of its range, but it benefits
from climate change in another portion of its range? The
manner in which a vulnerability assessment addresses this
question will affect how managers can use the information
to make decisions. One possible way for dealing with this
concern is to assess vulnerability across the entire range
of a species or ecosystem type, so that the vulnerability of
that species or system in one particular place is placed in a
larger-scale context.
As these suggested steps indicate, conducting a vulner-
ability assessment can require a substantial investment
in time and resources. However, bringing staff, external
experts and stakeholders into the assessment process can
both reduce costs and build support for the process and
results. The ideal result of a vulnerability assessment is a
broadly shared vision of what management success will
look like under future climate conditions. The case studies
that follow illustrate a range of methods for balancing the
need for information on climate impacts and responses, the
importance of stakeholder participation and limitations on
the time and resources available for a vulnerability assessment. Vulnerability Case Studies 1 and 2 represent opposite
ends of a continuum. The first case is a highly detailed
assessment that includes data-rich modeling efforts, while
the second is built primarily on expert opinion and represents less of an investment in time and resources. The other
case studies combine these two approaches and provide
a sample of the variety of approaches available for these
assessments.
Vulnerability Assessment Case Study 1: Assessing Potential Climate Change
Impacts on Vulnerability of Species and Habitats in the Pacific Northwest
This project will create a regional-scale climate
change vulnerability assessment of species and
habitats of conservation concern in the Pacific
Northwest states of Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Portions of the assessment are currently
underway with funds from the US Geological
Survey and The Nature Conservancy, as well
as technical assistance from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The assessment consists of two stages over a three year
period. The first phase will identify those aquatic
and terrestrial species and habitats of concern
that are most vulnerable to climate change and
develop initial climate adaptation action and
monitoring based on this early information.
The second phase will incorporate potential
habitat changes as higher resolution climate and
vegetation models become available. The project
assesses both the sensitivity to climate change
and potential exposure to climate but does
not address adaptive capacity. The resources
required for this type of assessment are significant (the project will likely require a total of
$800,000 and 3-4 years to complete), but it is
being conducted at a regional scale, considers
both selected species and broad habitat categories and combines the resources of state, federal,
academic and non-profit partners.
16
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 2: Tools for Planning and Implementing Adaptaion Actions
The goals of the project are to: 1) create a database, based on expert workshops and literature review
that assesses and ranks 400 target species and habitats according to their intrinsic sensitivity to climate
change; 2) will use General Circulation Model (GCM) simulations of future climate to assess the magnitude and range of potential future climate change in the Pacific Northwest; 3) will model potential
climate-driven shifts in vegetation across the Pacific Northwest; 4) will model the potential effects of
climate change on the distributions of 30 selected species of greatest conservation need in the region;
5) will integrate the results of the project’s first three parts to provide an assessment of climate change
impacts for the Pacific Northwest including the potential impacts of climate change on conservation
opportunity areas or other selected areas identified by or in association with each state’s Wildlife Action
Plan; 6) will apply these findings by retrofitting the plans – first for species (based on expert knowledge
and existing literature) and then for habitats as higher resolution climate models and subsequent habitat
models are completed; 7) will provide a template to assist other regions of the country in conducting
vulnerability assessments and developing adaptation strategies.
Contact: Dr. Joshua Lawler, University of Washington, E-mail [email protected]
Vulnerability Assessment Case Study 2: Vulnerability of Massachusetts Fish and
Wildlife Habitats to Climate Change
© scdnr alan bridgnam PHOTO / bugwood.org
This vulnerability assessment
project used an expert panel of
ecologists and wildlife biologists
with professional expertise on the
status, distribution, conservation
and threats to fish, wildlife and
their habitats. The main purpose
of this expert panel was to provide
answers to the following vulnerability questions: 1) How do the
fish and wildlife habitats in the
state wildlife action plan rank in
terms of their likely comparative
vulnerabilities to climate change?
2) How will the representation of
these habitats in Massachusetts be
altered by a changing climate? 3)
What degree of confidence can
be assigned to the above projections? 4) What other stressors are
likely to be important in the future,
the alleviation of which could promote increased habitat resilience and resistance to change? Experts
evaluated the comparative vulnerabilities of twenty habitats for which they have expertise under two
emissions scenarios and were asked to score habitats using a vulnerability scale (critically vulnerable;
vulnerable; less vulnerable; likely to benefit, likely to greatly benefit). Experts were also asked to describe
likely future ecological trajectories, assign confidence scores and identify other non-climate stressors
that could interact with and exacerbate the effects of climate change. The results were compiled into a
unified report and circulated within the entire expert panel for final review. The project cost approximately $70,000, including travel and in-kind costs and took about 12 months to complete.
Contact: Hector Galbraith, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, E-mail [email protected].
More information is available at www.climateandwildlife.org
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
17
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Vulnerability Assessment Case Study 3: Using NatureServe’s Climate Change
Vulnerability Index to Assess Nevada Plant and Animal Species
Motivated by the need to rapidly assess the vulnerability of species to climate change, NatureServe
developed a Climate Change Vulnerability Index. The goal was to create a tool that would use distribution and natural history information for a species within a specific geographical area (such as a state) to
rapidly estimate relative risk of local extirpation due to climate change. The Index is designed to complement other assessments of conservation status. The Index separates a species’ vulnerability into two
main components: exposure to climate change within its range and sensitivity of the species to climate
change. Data include downscaled climate projections and scoring of the species against seventeen
factors related to its anticipated climate change sensitivity, such as dispersal ability and habitat specificity.
Additional factors addressing indirect exposure to climate change and documented responses to climate
change are also included. The outcome for each species is one of six possible Index categories: three
– Vulnerable (Extremely, Highly, or Moderately Vulnerable), two – Not Vulnerable (Presumed Stable,
Increase Likely) and one – Insufficient Evidence. This Index allows users to divide species into groupings of relative risk to climate change and identify key causes of vulnerability. The results can be used to
modify Wildlife Action Plans to address climate change and to help land managers anticipate the effectiveness of different adaptation strategies and select key species to monitor.
Key characteristics of the Vulnerability Index include the following: 1) uses information about the magnitude of predicted changes in temperature and precipitation across a species’ range to calculate relative
vulnerability; 2) contemplates vulnerability to climate change for a 50-year time frame (although users
can modify this target timeframe); 3) has been developed for assessment areas ranging from the scale
of a national park or wildlife refuge, to an entire state; 4) information required to complete the Index
includes species-level distribution and natural history information, and historical and predicted temperature and precipitation data for the assessment area and maps of land use; 5) output from the Index is
initially compiled in a table sorted by vulnerability categories and can be sorted in other ways. This
approach requires a broad set of data on both climate trends and species, but the Index developed for
the analysis is flexible and can be applied at a variety of scales.
The Nevada Natural Heritage Program and Nevada Department of Wildlife worked closely with NatureServe during the development of the Index and are currently in the process of ranking Nevada’s Wildlife
Action Plan species. The results of the Index ranking will be used to amend the Nevada Wildlife Action
Plan with a chapter specific to climate change. Thus far, the Index has exceeded expectations as a “rapid”
assessment tool. Once the distribution and natural history information on a species is researched and
compiled -- NatureServe has already done this for many species (available at NatureServe Explorer,
www.natureserve.org/explorer) -- it can take as little as 30-45 minutes to rank a species. The cost of the
assessment will be approximately $160,000.
Contact: Bruce Young, NatureServe. E-mail [email protected]
More Information is available at: www.natureserve.org/climatechange
Vulnerability Assessment Case Study 4: Application of an Integrated Climate
Change Assessment & Adaptation Framework in the Four Corners Region
To address the need for information and guidance on responding to the potential consequences of
climate change, The New Mexico Chapter of the Nature Conservancy (TNC) initiated a climate change
ecology and adaptation program in 2006. Building on the successful completion of a state-wide vulnerability assessment and two adaptation-oriented workshops for natural resource managers in New Mexico,
TNC launched the Southwest Climate Change Initiative (SWCCI) in the Four Corners region. The Initiative seeks to further develop and apply an integrated assessment approach that examines regional climate
18
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 2: Tools for Planning and Implementing Adaptaion Actions
impacts, prioritizes adaptation actions based on vulnerability and identifies specific climate adaptation
strategies in priority landscapes – one each in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah -- using a new
adaptation planning tool.
The SWCCI integrated framework begins with a spatially explicit regional assessment of climate using
the Climate Wizard analysis tool. Specific climate metrics include departures and trend in temperature,
precipitation and moisture stress. All variables were mapped and analyzed across the four states both
retrospectively and prospectively. Annual and seasonal trends were evaluated within the time periods
analyzed (1950-2006, 1970-2006, 2020-2039 and 2069-2099). Statistical summaries were generated for
each climate metric and time period for the region and for each state, ecoregion and watershed. Important conservation areas were evaluated for each state with respect to exposure to recent and predicted
future climate changes. Conservation priorities identified in TNC’s ecoregional analyses and in Wildlife
Action Plans were used as “surrogates of sensitivity.” Although the approach does not measure a conservation priority’s adaptive capacity, hypotheses of which conservation priorities are most and least vulnerable to ongoing climate change were developed. An evaluation of the level of climate exposure relative
to conservation importance helped to prioritize vulnerable landscapes for adaptation action.
Contact: Carolyn Enquist, The Nature Conservancy, New Mexico. Email: [email protected]. Patrick
McCarthy, The Nature Conservancy, New Mexico. E-mail: [email protected]
More Information: http://nmconservation.org/projects/new_mexico_climate_change/
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
19
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Adaptive Management: Using Management
results to Inform Future Actions
As the uncertainties involved in vulnerability assessment
illustrate, many of the challenges of adapting to climate
change will require wildlife managers to make assumptions
about future conditions and how best to cope with them,
monitor the results of management actions closely, and then
use those results to inform future decision making. This
process describes adaptive management in its most basic form.
© Arkansas Game & fish Commission
What is adaptive management?
Adaptive management, often called “learning by doing,”
is a critical tool for making management decisions with
incomplete information and high levels of uncertainty. It
is a way of gradually acquiring the information needed for
decision-making without indefinitely postponing needed
actions. At its core, adaptive management is simply a way of
connecting monitoring and decision-making. Management
decisions are based on the best available information but
are also designed to provide more data and feedback in the
future. The results of an action are closely monitored to
evaluate the effectiveness of the action, and then monitoring
results are used to inform future decisions or policies.
Adaptive management can provide a way of doing
business that helps agencies move forward with conservation actions instead of waiting for complete information
on future climate impacts. It does not need to be a rigorous
scientific process in order to achieve these goals. Instead, a
carefully targeted monitoring program and a clearly defined
process for incorporating new information into the planning
cycle can help states deal with uncertainty without creating
a burdensome new structure. As agencies struggle with
new problems and limited resources, this more flexible
form of adaptive management
may be appropriate.
To limit policy failures and
prepare for the unexpected,
managers should carefully
consider the potential results of
decisions and plan responses to
the full range of likely outcomes.
For example, as part of its early
decision-making process, an
agency might include a back-up
plan that can be implemented
in short order if the initial plan
fails to meet objectives. In the
context of climate change adaptation, it may also be necessary
to periodically incorporate new
climate information into the
20
planning process. Instead of creating a single management
plan, it may be necessary to create two or more plans to
be implemented under different future climate scenarios,
or to check back periodically and make sure assumptions
about the changing climate continue to hold true. Climateinformed adaptive management can draw on a wealth of
existing information on climate impacts and ecological
responses to help define a range of potential actions and
likely responses.
For example, a coastal state may be concerned about
a high-priority estuary that is projected to be inundated
by rising sea levels. The state could choose to protect
an area just inland from the current estuary based on the
assumption that inundation will occur as projected and
that the system and its associated species can shift to the
new area. If the trajectory of sea level rise is unclear,
the agency might choose to protect several areas or to
provide incentives to local landowners to manage their
land in a way that will accommodate the shift inland in a
number of directions. In this example, monitoring will be
needed to determine whether sea level rise is occurring as
projected, whether and where the estuary system is moving
in response to changing sea level, and whether the new
estuary supports the desired species and other values. The
management strategy should outline what action will be
taken if the objectives are not being met in the new area,
and the results of the process should be used to inform
future attempts to cope with sea level rise.
Targeted Monitoring in a Rapidly Changing
Climate
Targeted monitoring forms the basis for adaptive management and for the development and implementation of
adaptation strategies. Monitoring programs should clearly
demonstrate the biological response to particular adaptive
management actions. In other words, monitoring is not an
end in itself, but is conducted to illustrate why and how
actions succeed or fail to meet management objectives. Data
collected through monitoring should be comprehensive and
detailed enough to evaluate a decision or action, but not
so complex that the monitoring program overwhelms an
agency’s capacity and impedes the management process.
Well-planned monitoring systems are key to determining
if current conservation plans follow desirable ecological
trends and are meeting management goals. Monitoring was
a required element for Wildlife Action Plans (Element 5),
but implementation of monitoring systems has been a challenge because most state fish and wildlife agencies have
insufficient capacity and resources for monitoring. Under
a changing climate, the importance of monitoring will be
elevated.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 2: Tools for Planning and Implementing Adaptaion Actions
Types of Monitoring:
Status and Trends (extensive) monitoring: tracks changes in wildlife and fish populations
and their associated habitats over time.
Example: Track the population status of four target species in an area.
Research (intensive) monitoring: identifies cause-and-effect relationships between physical
habitat conditions, ecological processes, land use practices and/or conservation strategies and the
animal populations of interest.
Example: Identify the factors contributing to a population decline in one of the target species.
Effectiveness monitoring: documents the success of conservation actions in achieving the
desired resource condition
Example: Determine if a prescribed burn achieved the desired result of maintaining plant diversity.
Implementation monitoring: Helps confirm that planned conservation actions were implemented.
Example: Document that a management program to purchase habitat for four target species was
completed as planned
The type of monitoring should be closely focused to meet specific information needs. While many
Wildlife Action Plans only address status and trend and effectiveness monitoring, research and implementation monitoring are also important in achieving conservation success. Monitoring efforts that aim to
track climate-related changes involve identifying long-term trends in both physical and biological variables.
Physical variables might include temperature, precipitation patterns, sea level rise, storm frequencies and
season length. Biological changes may include species richness, altitudinal/latitudinal migrations in habitat,
phenological changes, changes to population size or range of invasive species and expansion of diseases.
Key monitoring components in a rapidly changing climate
1. Identify the conservation goals and objectives
2. Identify the scope of the monitoring program
3. Compile information relevant to monitoring program design
4. Identify target species and systems
5. Develop simple management-oriented questions
6. Identify monitoring recommendations and critical uncertainties
7. Determine strategy for implementing monitoring
8. Build a monitoring plan that allows for change and growth over time
9. Develop data quality assurance, data management, analysis and reporting strategies
10. Use monitoring results to provide effective feedback to decision-making
11. When possible, collect information valuable for other efforts
The role of monitoring in climate change response
Ecological monitoring is a key component of biodiversity conservation and management. Given some of
the uncertainties associated with climate change and how
species will respond increases the importance and timeliThe Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
ness of effective monitoring actions. In addition, effective
monitoring is key to an adaptive management approach
and will provide a useful method for decision making that
can be applied to all climate change related activities and
informs climate change adaptation efforts.
21
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Chapter 3:
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN REVISION PROCESS
Chapter 3 includes a review and summary of existing guidance on Wildlife Action Plans and describes how climate
change may reshape the original eight required elements.
Congress required that state fish and wildlife agencies
develop a Wildlife Action Plan as a condition for receiving
State Wildlife Grant funding. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
have provided guidance on the development, approval,
implementation and revision of Wildlife Action Plans and
the expenditure of State Wildlife Grant funds to assist states
in carrying out this mandate. The most recent guidance was
a letter by the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and the President of the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies regarding requirements for plan revision (FWS/
AFWA Revision Guidance, 2007). Additional guidance may
be included in future appropriation or climate change legislation. States should review their Wildlife Action Plans to
determine the timeframe for required revisions. States may
opt to revise their plan before they are required to do so.
Existing Guidance Documents That Were Reviewed
1. Congressional Legislation – Required 8 Elements
(2000)
2. AFWA Guiding Principles White Paper (2002)
3. AFWA Guidance Binder (2003)
4. NAAT One Year Out Guidance (2004)
5. FWS/AFWA Revision Guidance Letter (2007)
6. Draft 2 521 FWS State Wildlife Grant Chapter (2007)
Wildlife Action Plans were organized according to eight
elements required by Congress. Each of these required
elements must be addressed during a major revision of a
Wildlife Action Plan. Following is a review of the eight
required elements and suggestions to consider when
revising your Wildlife Action Plans to better incorporate
climate change:
Climate Change Implications By Element
Element 1: Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining
populations as the state fish and wildlife agency deems
appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health
of the state’s wildlife.
According to the AFWA Guiding Principles White
Paper (2002), Wildlife Action Plans should address the
broad range of wildlife and associated habitats, as well as
combine landscape/ecosystem/habitat-based approaches
22
and smaller-scale approaches (e.g. focal, keystone, and/or
indicator species; guilds; species of special concern)
for planning and implementation. The AFWA Guidance
Binder (2003) provides specific criteria for the evaluation of species for inclusion as a species in greatest need
of conservation. Many of those criteria may need to be
reevaluated in the context of climate change, including
criteria for the following categories: globally rare species;
declining species; endemic species; disjunct species;
vulnerable species; small, localized populations; species
with limited dispersal; species with fragmented or isolated
populations; species of special conservation concern; focal
species; keystone species; wide-ranging species; species
with specific needs; indicator species; responsibility species
(i.e. species that have their center of range within a state)
and species that rely on concentration areas (e.g. migratory
stopover sites, bat roosts/maternity sites). The evaluation
should describe how and why a state’s species in greatest
conservation need (SGCN) list priorities will change as a
result of the evaluation.
Climate Change Considerations:
•States should consider reexamining their SGCN list
and make changes to account for current and future
impacts of climate change. It may be necessary to specifically examine the likely effects of climate change
on species with very low and declining populations.
Climate change may significantly change the abundance of many wildlife species (including species
which were not considered to be SGCN).
•States should consider the implications for range
changes in recovery efforts of SGCN species. Climate
change may significantly change the distribution of
many wildlife species (including species not currently
considered SGCN).
•States may need to reconsider their definitions/lists for
native, exotic and invasive species.
•State’s should consider using their revision process as
an opportunity to address the needs of species groups
not currently addressed in their Wildlife Action Plan
(e.g. marine species, plants). If there are jurisdictional
barriers states may want to show how those species
are being addressed by the agencies in which the jurisdiction falls.
•States should consider using vulnerability assessments
as a tool for identifying and describing the impacts of
climate change on species. Vulnerability assessments
can help states plan for new threats associated with
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 3: State Wildlife Action Plan Revision Process
climate change and those that might be exacerbated by
climate change.
•States should consider using species-based models
that can incorporate both direct and indirect effects of
climate change on survival, reproduction and other life
history factors. For example temperature changes may
lead to increased severe weather events that affect
survival or reproductive capacity of migratory species.
•States should consider using vulnerability assessments
to consider how climate change influences populations
outside of a state’s border.
Element 2: Information on the location and relative
condition of key habitats and community types essential to
the conservation of each state’s SGCN.
Revision of Element 2 for climate change should
address the broad range of habitats associated with SGCN.
Both landscape and smaller scale approaches should be
considered (AFWA Guiding Principles White Paper, 2002).
Spatially explicit information such as GIS-produced maps
can be a useful tool for describing habitat conditions and
location and can be used by the agency and partners to
guide conservation work and inform land-use decisionmaking (AFWA Guiding Principles White Paper, 2002).
If possible, the revision process should consider habitats/
biotic communities that serve as “umbrellas” for species
assemblages. A habitat/vegetation approach can improve
efficiency in managing for multiple species and serve as a
way to conserve all species, including common and game
species (AFWA Guidance Binder, 2003). Climate change
revisions should consider the scale required for effective
conservation of habitats in the face of a changing climate
and suggest coordination processes for conservation at
effective scales (NAAT One Year Out Guidance, 2004).
Climate Change Considerations:
•States should consider acquiring information on how
habitats and communities are likely to change as a
result of climate change (i.e. use scenario-building
processes).
•States should consider that climate change will likely
affect the extent and condition of habitats and community types at various spatial and temporal scales.
•States should consider using vulnerability assessments
as a tool for identifying and describing the impacts of
climate change on key habitats.
Element 3: Descriptions of problems which may
adversely affect species identified in (1) or their habitats,
and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify
factors which may assist in restoration and improved
conservation of these species and their habitats.
Revision of Element 3 will require that states examine the
full range of issues, including non-wildlife factors that have
substantial impact on wildlife conservation (AFWA Guiding
Principles White Paper, 2002). Wildlife Action Plans
should address issues at the state level and coordinate with
parallel efforts in other states and countries (AFWA Guiding
Principles White Paper, 2002). Threats analyses (or other
comparable methodology) should be used to set goals and
priorities and should identify knowledge gaps for future
study (AFWA Guiding Principles White Paper, 2002).
Climate Change Considerations:
•States should consider climate change as a new problem
for species and habitats, including potential direct and
indirect impacts (e.g. sea level rise, invasive species,
disease, snowpack extent and duration and increased
number and severity of floods, droughts and wildfires).
•States should consider reviewing current threats,
problems or impacts affecting wildlife through a climate lens and treat climate change as both a new and
exacerbating threat.
•States should consider using vulnerability assessments
to identify and prioritize threats.
•States should consider the impacts of fragmentation
and land use to fish and wildlife movement as a barrier
to wildlife adaptation across the landscape.
•States should consider how climate change will affect
the future abundance and distribution of habitat types
as well as changes in structure and physical characteristics.
•States should consider using methodology that “steps
down” global climate models to the state level so that
the impacts of climate change can be better understood at scales that are useful for decision-making and
management at the state scale.
•States should consider the implications of the appearance of novel (no-analog) communities as vegetation
responds to changing climate.
•States should consider partnering with adjacent states
or regions to identify and implement priority research
and survey needs both within and across state border.
•States should strive to identify the location and condition of priority landscapes and smaller site-specific habitats that may not be easily mapped but are important
now or in the future to SGCN (e.g. seasonal habitats).
•States should consider using research and monitoring
to identify how habitats or plant communities may
change in response to climate change and how those
changes influence conservation of SGCN.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
23
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
•States should consider using research to understand
which vital rates or life history characteristics are
influenced by climate change (survival, reproductive
capacity, foraging, etc.).
Element 4: Descriptions of conservation actions determined to be necessary to conserve the identified species
and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions.
Revision of Element 4 will require that states describe
the conservation actions needed to address identified threats
to SGCN and their habitats. Identification and prioritization
of actions should involve all relevant partners and consider
various approaches at appropriate state, regional and
national scales (AFWA Guiding Principles White Paper,
2002). Actions should make full use of existing information, identify knowledge gaps and incorporate techniques
such as vulnerability assessments to set priorities (AFWA
Guiding Principles White Paper, 2002). Wildlife Action
Plans should be a driving force in guiding activities under
diverse wildlife and habitat conservation initiatives and
should include all needed actions regardless of funding
source or state wildlife agency capacity (AFWA Guiding
Principles White Paper, 2002; NAAT One Year Out
Guidance, 2004). Conservation actions should be described
sufficiently to guide implementation of those actions
through development and execution of specific projects and
programs.
Climate Change Considerations:
•States should consider developing conservation actions
that specifically address the direct and indirect impacts
of climate change on species and their habitats over a
wide range of likely future climate conditions.
•States should consider identifying/describing how
conservation actions will be prioritized in consideration of multiple threats/stresses and increased uncertainty.
•States should consider identifying which actions are
intended to minimize climate change impacts, which
will provide for wildlife adaptation, which will provide for resilience and/or which will facilitate movement to suitable habitats and conditions.
•States should consider identifying decision points or
thresholds for actions that are designed to: 1) recognize that some species will go extinct despite our best
efforts; and 2) minimize imminent loss of habitats and
species.
•States should consider including the identification, protection and maintenance of key corridors to
improve connectivity as a key action to help wildlife
adapt to climate change.
24
•States should consider linking conservation actions to
specific objectives and indicators that will facilitate
monitoring, performance measurement and changes or
improvements to actions through adaptive management.
•States should consider conservation actions that
benefit the greatest number of SGCN and other more
common and economically important species (e.g.
game species).
Element 5: Descriptions of the proposed plans for
monitoring species identified in Element 1 and their
habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in Element 4, and for adapting
these conservation actions to respond appropriately to
new information or changing conditions.
Revision of Element 5 will require that states identify
proposed monitoring plans. When developing or adapting
monitoring efforts for incorporation of climate change,
states should base their Wildlife Action Plans in the principles of “best science,” “best management practices,” and
“adaptive management,” with measurable goals, objectives,
strategies, approaches and activities that are complete,
realistic, feasible, logical and achievable (AFWA’s Guiding
Principles White Paper, 2002). Wildlife Action Plans
should describe the proposed plans for monitoring species
and their habitats and the effectiveness of the conservation
actions taken, with attention given to adapting conservation actions to new information and changing conditions
(AFWA Guidance Binder, 2003). While all states addressed
and included monitoring plans in their approved Wildlife
Action Plans, most did not address or include monitoring
specifically for climate change impacts or adaptation. States
should consider how existing monitoring plans can or
should be modified to address climate change or if climate
change monitoring should be considered independently.
Climate Change Considerations:
•States should consider increasing monitoring effort
to better inform adaptive management, which is of
increased importance in responding to climate change.
•States should consider increasing monitoring effort to
evaluate management decisions which will become
increasingly complex because of the uncertainty of
climate change.
•States should strive to use the most streamlined, affordable, scalable and broadly applicable monitoring
methods available.
•States should consider new collaborations with other
states, NGO’s, citizen scientist organizations etc. to
improve species and habitat monitoring across entire
ranges and regions.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 3: State Wildlife Action Plan Revision Process
Element 6: Each State’s provisions to review its
strategy at intervals not to exceed ten years.
Revision of Element 6 will require that states identify
the timeframe for future plan revisions. The AFWA Guiding
Principles White Paper (2002) recommended that Wildlife
Action Plans include review procedures that ensure the
plans are dynamic and can be improved and updated
efficiently as new information is obtained. The NAAT One
Year Out Guidance (2004) states that additions and changes
to Wildlife Action Plans should be identified as part of the
“element guide” and where appropriate demonstrates the
linkages between changes in the elements. For example, a
change in the SGCN list (Element 1) might require reprioritization of the actions necessary to conserve species and/or
their habitats (Element 2). According to the FWS/AFWA
Revision Guidance Letter (2007) all states should review/
revise their Action Plans by October 1, 2015, or by the
date specified in their approved Action Plan. Many states
are currently revising their Wildlife Action Plan or may be
doing so in the future to better incorporate climate change.
The FWS/AFWA Revision Guidance Letter (2007)
instructs that states contact their Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration State Wildlife Grant Specialist in their USFWS
regional office for guidance at the outset of their revision
process. If a state included only a brief mention of climate
change, then the state may make a request of the Service to
include climate change as an emerging issue. The request
should be made as a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service describing the emerging issue and committing the
state to a thorough discussion of the climate change in the
next scheduled revision of their Wildlife Action Plan. States
planning to revise their Wildlife Action Plans to more fully
incorporate climate change should refer to the FWS/AFWA
Revision Guidance Letter (2007) in the Appendix to determine if a revision will be considered “major” or “minor”
and to ensure the proper steps are followed.
Element 7: Each State’s provisions for coordination
during the development, implementation, review, and revision of its Strategy with Federal, State, and local agencies
and Indian Tribes that manage significant areas of land or
water within the State, or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of species or their habitats.
Revision of Element 7 will require that states describe
how they will coordinate with partner organizations.
Coordination is encouraged, especially for border states
and states where such coordination is needed for successful
conservation of SGCN (NAAT One Year Out Guidance,
2004). Many efforts are underway by state agencies,
federal agencies and private conservation organizations to
plan for climate change. In addition, there is rapid growth
in the volume of information becoming available about
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
climate change including vulnerability assessment, wildlife
adaptation and research and monitoring. Coordination with
partners will help ensure that state fish and wildlife agencies can use and distribute information on climate change
in an efficient and effective manner.
Climate Change Considerations:
•States should consider involving/collaborating with
partners (e.g. agencies, private conservation organizations, tribes, etc.) early during the revision process to
ensure effective communication and sharing of information, expertise and resources.
•States should consider involving/coordinating with
partners due to the uncertainty of climate change and
the importance of coordinating management at large
ecologically meaningful scales.
•States with coastal resources should consider collaborating with marine-oriented partners, particularly those
states without full jurisdiction over marine species.
Element 8: Each State’s provisions to provide the
necessary public participation in the development, revision, and implementation of its Strategy.
Public participation is the process of inviting and
involving the public in decision-making to promote trust,
accountability and transparency. It serves the public
interest, can lead to improved decision-making and helps to
identify and recruit new constituencies. Public participation
is a discipline and there are many sources of information,
training, expertise and case studies available to assist with
the process. Public participation can be accomplished
through advisory committees, public meetings, town
halls, forums, polling, open houses, workshops, focus
groups public comment periods, social networking, etc.
The International Association of Public Participation is a
good source of information and their public participation
spectrum can help categorize major stakeholder roles in the
public participation process.
AFWA’s Guiding Principles White Paper (2002) made a
number of recommendations related to public participation
including the importance of documenting decision points,
involving partners early in the process and using traditional
(e.g. public meetings) and technological innovations (e.g.
internet polling) to engage the public. The Plan Revision
Guidance Letter (2007) stated that “a major revision of a
Wildlife Action Plan will require that states address element
eight and provide an up to date public review process.”
The letter also stated that “states are encouraged to post an
electronic version of their most recent Action Plan on the
web along with the summary of significant changes and
“road map.”
25
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Climate Change Considerations:
•States should consider using public participation planning processes because of the complexity and potential for controversy associated with climate change.
•States should take advantage of resources (e.g. PowerPoint presentations) available from states and partners
that can be useful in helping the public understand the
science and impacts of climate change on wildlife.
•States should recognize that there are a variety of
positions on climate change even among those who
value wildlife. Controversy associated with policies to
reduce greenhouse gasses (e.g. cap and trade protocol)
should be separated from the necessity to immediately
address the impacts of climate change to wildlife.
•States should consider choosing terms that are appropriate and if possible tested with your constituency
groups. For example, the term “safeguarding wildlife”
has been shown to be more readily understood by the
public than “adaptation”.
•States should consider involving conservation partners
early during the public participation planning process,
but recognize there may not be agreement on messages or approaches.
© usfws / donny browning PHOTO
The AFWA Guidance Binder (2003), made the
following suggestions related to public participation.
Agency capacity for leading a public participation process
should be assessed and those leading the process should be
experienced and well trained. Where capacity is lacking,
professionals outside the agency should be utilized.
Objectives for public involvement should be determined
during the early stages of planning and be based on agency
and public needs or requirements. These needs or requirements may change over time, which may require a change
in objectives. It is important to anticipate controversies so
relevant information can be acquired in advance of public
meetings. Potential triggers can be defused by framing the
planning process in terms that reduce the risks of public
misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation. The
plan’s purposes should be linked to established community
values (e.g. bird watching, fishing, economic development,
quality of life), existing conservation efforts should be
acknowledged and the voluntary nature of the plan should
be emphasized. Language should be direct and honest and
it should be understood that the most involved or outspoken
people may be opinion leaders but may not be indicative
of the public at large. Including such people in the process
is essential, but their viewpoints should be corroborated.
Past experiences in public participation (good and bad) can
serve as a guide for new processes.
26
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 3: State Wildlife Action Plan Revision Process
REVISION PROCESS CASE STUDIES
Revision Process Case Study 1: Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
© judy kennamer PHOTO / dreamstime.com
Overview
Virginia completed a revision of its state wildlife
action plan in the fall of 2009. The revision was
done to elevate the importance of climate change
and provide guidance to the agency and partners
who are working on climate change or will be
in the near future. The climate change document
will be attached as an appendix to the Virginia
Wildlife Action Plan. Completion of an appendix
is an interim step, and a major revision of the
Virginia plan is planned for 2015 to incorporate
climate change throughout the entire document. The key steps that were used include:
1) forming a partnership with the National
Wildlife Federation and the Virginia Conservation
Network; 2) holding a workshop that included
agency leaders and partners in October 2008 to
identify concerns and actions; 3) reviewing and
synthesizing workshop input with three primary
partners; 4) holding a second workshop in March
2009 to discuss potential solutions; 5) circulating
workshop input to all partners for final round of
comments; 6) linking the revision document to
agency priority plans (e.g. State Wildlife Action
Plan, Quail Plan, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs, etc.); and 7) submitting the completed
document to the USFWS as an appendix to their Wildlife Action Plan.
Partner Roles
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries provided facilities for the workshops and played a
lead role in coordinating and writing the revision. The National Wildlife Federation secured grant funding,
organized and provided staff for the workshops, and gave the process an elevated profile. The Virginia
Conservation Network distributed and reviewed information from the workshops and helped put the
climate change issue before policy makers. The plan revision process was deemed a successful collaborative effort, and without grant funding and partner support the agency would have had to scale-down the
revision process.
Lessons Learned
Time spent doing agency in-reach at the outset of the planning process was important to the process. A
partner-centered approach sent a message that climate change planning required thinking and resources
that went beyond the agency’s capacity. Major issues were placed into three broad categories (conservation of species and habitats, data and outreach). Focused and well thought-out questions for workshop
discussions and well-prepared facilitators were key to obtaining useful information. Holding workshops
in geographically distinct regions at different times of the year and having workshop participants identify
additional partners were also important components.
Contact: Chris Burkett, State Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator,Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries Phone (804) 367-9717, Email [email protected]
More Information: http://www.vcnva.org/anx/index.cfm/1,342,0,0,html/ppp
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
27
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Revision Process Case Study 2: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Overview
Oregon has nearly completed a minor revision of its Wildlife Action Plan. The minor revision was done
to provide immediate direction to agency staff and others working on climate change. The revised Wildlife Action Plan will be used as a companion to the Oregon Adaptation Strategy and will help stimulate
communication on climate change. The revision process was started in March 2009 and was completed in
the fall of 2009. The process slowed considerably during a busy legislative session. The document will be
made available to agency staff and others as a transition document until a major revision of the Wildlife
Action Plan is completed. The major revision will start in October 2009 and will incorporate climate
change throughout the entire Wildlife Action Plan. The key steps that were used included: 1) a review
of all information on climate in the Wildlife Action Plan; 2) solicitation of agency staff for additional
information and review of SGCN; 3) development of an outline; 4) assembly of a mini-stakeholder group
(consisting mostly of the same groups that helped develop the Wildlife Action Plan); 5) review of SGCN
status by stakeholders; and 6) agency review of stakeholder recommendations.
Partner Roles
The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife oversaw the revision process and provided technical review
of the Wildlife Action Plan and SGCN list. The mini-stakeholder group (Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, forest industry representatives and hunter/
angler representatives) reviewed the recommendations of agency staff.
Lessons Learned
Completion of the project was delayed by about three months because staff time was allocated to legislative activities. In hindsight, the agency would not have done the minor and major revisions back-to-back
but wanted to be in a position to take immediate advantage of potential state and federal climate change
funding. There will likely be confusion and some planning fatigue when the major revision starts, resulting
in the reluctance of some staff and partners to participate in the major revision. A benefit of the minor
revision is that the state is better prepared to work on climate change and can be more responsive to
funding opportunities.
Contact: Holly Michael, Conservation Policy Coordinator, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, Phone
(503) 947-6072, Email [email protected]
More Information: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/news/2008/2008_december.asp
Revision Process Case Study 3: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
28
© Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Overview
Florida began a revision of its Wildlife Action Plan in
March 2009 and is scheduled to complete the revision by July 2011. Plan revision began with a lot of
introspection and discussions within the agency. The
agency is evaluating the process used for developing
and implementing the plan and will use these findings to inform the revision process. Changes that are
expected include adding and updating GIS information,
evaluating the Species of Greatest Conservation Need
list, restructuring of the document, and incorporating
Climate Change adaptation planning. The agency will
be doing outreach so that key individuals/partners
are not “surprised” by the revision. One of the key
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 3: State Wildlife Action Plan Revision Process
messages will be that the agency is not reinventing the plan, just keeping it relevant. The key steps that
are being used include: 1) creation of an internal sub-team; 2) narrowing of issues to top priorities
(SGCN list, climate change, GIS data, re-evaluation of threats and actions); 3) creating a timeline for
implementation.
Partner Roles
The agency has not yet determined which partners will be used during plan revision. The scope of the
revision will determine if partners or consultants need to be hired to assist.
Lessons Learned
The agency held a climate change stakeholder summit in the fall of 2008. The meeting was successful
because much effort went into planning to create a structured agenda, there was good facilitation and
work group leaders were empowered to plan and execute breakout sessions. To counter “planning
fatigue” the agency’s message is that the entire plan is not being redone but instead is being surgically
changed to make it better. Planning staff are “piggy-backing” on interest and structure (80 staff) that have
been put in place to address climate change. Key internal staff are being involved in the process early and
additional staff will be involved based on their recommendations. Regional biologists hired to implement
the Wildlife Action Plan will play a key communication role.
Contact: Brian Branciforte, Wildlife Action Plan Coordinator, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Phone (850) 410-0656 x17309, Email [email protected]
More Information: http://myfwc.com/docs/Conservation/ClimateChange_SummitRept.pdf
Revision Process Case Study 4: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
Overview
Tennessee began developing an addendum to its Wildlife Acton Plan in the spring of 2008. The Climate
Change Literature Review addendum was completed and released to the public in June 2009. The agency
recognized a need to begin incorporating climate change into the Wildlife Action Plan to help secure
climate related funding for wildlife management in Tennessee and to educate agency staff on the effects of
climate change on wildlife and habitat. The key steps used in creating the addendum included: 1) Identifying and developing six habitat/species work groups for each section of the review; 2) Identifying key
partners for a peer review; 3) Undergoing the peer review process; 4) Incorporating edits and hosting
the finalized document online.
Partner Roles
The Climate Change Literature Review addendum was an in-house project completed by the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency. Key partners were identified to participate in the peer review process.
These partners included the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nature Conservancy, in-state partners
such as the Division of Forestry and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and
regional Wildlife Action Plan Coordinators from Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Missouri.
Lessons Learned
The development of the addendum provided an ideal opportunity for agency staff to become versed in
the peer-reviewed resources available relating to climate change and the flora, fauna and ecoregions in
Tennessee. By reviewing the literature, agency staff feels more confident about incorporating climate
change into the Wildlife Action Plan. Recognizing time constraints and realistic deadlines is a critical
component to the planning and revision process. With lengthy priority lists for departments, a thorough
evaluation of climate change related resources needs to be encouraged and tasked by agency heads to
ensure completion.
Contact: Richard Kirk, Non-Game/Endangered Species Program Coordinator, Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency, Phone (615) 781-6619, Email [email protected]
More Information: http://www.state.tn.us/twra/climate.html
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
29
Climate Change and Wildlife Action Plans Guidance Report
Revision Process Case Study 5: Nevada Department of Wildlife
Overview
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) is beginning a revision of their Wildlife Action Plan. After
receiving a state planning grant in January 2009, the agency has brought together the original Wildlife
Action Plan Partners to work on the review. Both the agency and partners recognized a need to
incorporate climate change in the Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. The goal is to produce a revised plan by
December 2010. The key steps being used in Nevada’s revision process include: 1) engaging key partners
through monthly meetings of the “Phase II Implementation Team;” 2) securing grant monies to allow
partners to work directly on Wildlife Action Plan revision projects and planning; 3) securing grant monies
to enable agency staff to provide oversight, organize workshops and scoping meetings and to provide
general staff support for the Wildlife Action Plan revision; 4) planning and hosting public scoping meetings to garner public participation; 5) planning and hosting smaller technical expert meetings to address
habitat and species specific concerns; and 6) development and release of the draft revision plan online for
public comment and peer review.
Partner Roles
Agency staff from the Nevada Department of Wildlife are overseeing the review process and coordinating partner efforts. Partners involved in the review have a substantial role to play in gathering information. Some of these partner projects include: NatureServe, which will conduct species vulnerability
assessments and will be hosting workshops to implement these assessments, The Nature Conservancy
which is working on modeling to predict habitat shifts as a response to climate change. Other key
partners involved in the revision process include the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP), the
Lahontan Audubon Society (LAS) and the Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO).
Lessons Learned
Maintaining engaged relationships with partners has been important in beginning the review process.
The ability to be upfront with funding partners regarding the planning process has allowed processes to
work smoothly. The objective of the revision process is to create a product that both the agency and
stakeholders can use.
Contact: Laura Richards, Wildlife Diversity Chief, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Phone (776)688-1996
Email [email protected]
© Geoff Hammerson / the Nevada Department of Wildlife
More Information: http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/cwcs/
30
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Chapter 3: State Wildlife Action Plan Revision Process
Revision Process Case Study 6: Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
© john white PHOTO
Overview
Massachusetts has
been working with its
partners to identify
and develop adaptation
tools and approaches.
A conference was
held on November
15, 2008 at Bentley
College to work on
responses to climate
change; 180 participants
attended. Following the
conference a survey
was conducted that
revealed (1) conservationists and landmanagers are greatly
concerned about the
possible impacts of
climate change on
resources; (2) climate change could undermine efforts to conserve ecosystems in the Commonwealth;
(3) collaborative efforts among agencies and conservation NGOs are needed to meet the scale and
complexity of the threat posed by climate change; (4) Massachusetts can play an important role in
advancing climate change adaptation planning, policy and funding regionally and nationally; and, most
importantly, (5) constructive guidance and tools based on good science are needed to help conservationists and planners fulfill their missions under a rapidly changing climate. An ad hoc committee was formed
after the conference to create a strategic vision document that identified goals and opportunities for
collaboration based on each organization’s strengths and capabilities and a “roadmap” for adapting to
climate change.
Partner Roles
Partners were important in organizing the workshop, drafting a strategic vision and serving on an Alliance that include Environmental League of Massachusetts, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences,
Massachusetts Audubon Society, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Massachusetts Division
of Fish and Wildlife, Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition, New England Wild Flower Society, The National
Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, The Trustees of Reservations. The purpose of the Alliance
is to promote and facilitate the dissemination of climate-related impacts and adaptation information, to
advocate for the development and implementation of science-based adaptation strategies to conserve
Massachusetts’ ecosystems and the array of services they provide in the face of climate change and to
engage in partnerships, communications and policy venues that enhance attention, planning, policy and
funding for wildlife resiliency.
Lessons Learned
The organization involved in the project committed to a common approach and are contributing to the
process. The Alliance could be expanded to other agencies to include a wider variety of stakeholders,
particularly those with stronger coastal and marine expertise.
Contact: Hector Galbraith, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, E-mail [email protected].
More Information: www.climateandwildlife.org
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
31
REFERENCES
Glossary of terms for Climate Change and State Wildlife Action Plan Guidance Document from The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Working Group II definitions http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/tar-ipcc-terms-en.pdf
Adaptation
Cross, M. S., E. S. Zavaleta, D. Bachelet, M. L. Brooks,
C. A. F. Enquist, E. Fleishman, L. Graumlich, C.
R. Groves, L. Hannah, L. Hansen, G. Hayward, M.
Koopman, J. J. Lawler, J. Malcolm, J. Nordgren, B.
Petersen, D. Scott, S. L. Shafer, M. R. Shaw, and G. M.
Tabor. in review. A climate change adaptation framework for natural resource conservation and management.
Conservation Letters.
Glick, P., A. Staudt, and B. Stein. 2009. A new era for
conservation: Review of climate change adaptation
literature. National Wildlife Federation report.
Heller, N. E. and E. S. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity
management in the face of climate change: a review of
22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation
142:14-32.
IPCC-TGCIA. 1999. Guidelines on the use of scenario
data for climate impact and adaptation assessment.
Version 1. Prepared by Carter, T.R., M. Hulme, and M.
Lal, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Task
Group on Scenarios for Climate Impact Assessment,
69pp.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 976pp.
Lawler, J. J., T. H. Tear, C. Pyke, R. Shaw, P. Gonzalez,
P. Kareiva, L. Hansen, L. Hannah, K. Klausmeyer,
A. Aldous, C. Bienz, and S. Pearsall. 2009. Resource
management in a changing and uncertain climate.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (on-line
e-view).
Millar, C. I., N. L. Stephenson, and S. L. Stephens. 2007.
Climate change and forests of the future: Managing
in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications
17:2145-2151.
Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter. 2003.
Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17:358-366.
The Heinz Center. 2008. Strategies for Managing the
Effects of Climate Change on Wildlife and Ecosystems.
Report by: The H. John Heinz III Center for Science,
Economics and the Environment, Washington, D.C.
32
Theoharides, K., G. Barnhart, and P. Glick. 2009. Climate
change adaptation across the landscape: A survey of
federal and state agencies, conservation organizations
and academic institutions in the United States. Report
by: The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Defenders of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, &
National Wildlife Federation.
Vulnerability
California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges: California’s
Wildlife Action Plan. 2007. Prepared by the UC Davis
Wildlife Health Center for the Department of Fish and
Game. ISBN: 0972229124. LCCN Permalink: http://
lccn.loc.gov/2008379066
Foden W, G Mace, J-C Vié, A Angulo, S Butchart, L
DeVantier, H Dublin, A Gutsche, S Stuart, E Turak.
2008. Species Susceptibility to Climate Impacts. In: Vié,
J-C, C. Hilton-Taylor, and SN Stuart (eds). The 2008
Review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
IUCN Gland, Switzerland.
IPCC Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team,
Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland, 104 pp.
Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds). 2009.
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.
Cambridge University Press.
Linblom, C. 1959. The science of muddling through. Public
Administration Review. 19(2): 79-99.
Lyons, James E., Michael C. Runge, Harold P. Laskowski,
and William L. Kendall. 2008. Monitoring in the context
of structured decision-making and adaptive management.
The Journal of Wildlife Management 72(8): 1683-1692.
Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment Team. 2006.
Climate Change in the Northeast.
Walters, Carl. J. and C.S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale
management experiments and learning by doing.
Ecology 71(6): 2060-2068; Stankey, George H., Roger
N. Clark, and Bernard T. Bormann. 2005. Adaptive
management of natural resources: theory, concepts, and
management institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW0GTR654. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Climate Change/Wildlife Action
Plan Workgroup - Charter
Purpose:
A workgroup will be formed to develop guidance and
recommendations and facilitate communication to help
states incorporate climate change into Wildlife Action
Plans.
Workgroup Members:
The workgroup will be chaired by the Climate Change and
Teaming With Wildlife Committee chairs or their designees
and will be comprised of state agency staff and key federal
and private partners.
Guiding Principles:
Wildlife Action Plans were completed for all states and
territories in 2005 according to specific guidelines and with
similar outcomes. These plans offer an excellent framework
for states and partners to collaborate in the development of adaptation strategies for climate change and to
communicate these efforts to the wildlife conservation
community. This workgroup will provide the best guidance and information possible for those states interested in
modifying their State Wildlife Action Plan or other wildlife
management plans to address climate change. It’s entirely
up to individual states to determine if it’s in their interest to
modify their State Wildlife Action Plan or to use the guidance produced by this workgroup.
Workgroup Charges:
1) Produce a guidance document that can be used as a
resource by states to modify/update their Wildlife Action
Plan to better address the impacts of climate change.
Coastal states should specifically address coastal issues
and coordinate closely with the state agency responsible
for management of coastal resources. The document will
include the following:
a. Examples of processes that can be used for plan
modification
b. Compilation and/or references to synthesized data/
information on climate change (TWS online bibliography, websites)
c. Guidance on conducting vulnerability assessments
including recommendations on species and systems
approaches at multiscales (state, regional, national)
d. Known climate change impacts and tools, including
regional models to identify impacts
e. Adaptation strategies and conservation actions needed
to address climate change. Suggested processes to
translate to on-the-ground use
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
f.Recommended monitoring programs for species and
habitats and approaches to modify the conservation
actions through adaptive management and assumption
driven research
2) Serve as a communication portal to the states to:
a. Improve awareness of climate change work
underway by the states through frequent and efficient
communication
Who Will Be Served: Members of the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies and key partners.
Measures of Success:
1.# of states that respond to information requests/
contribute information
Low success (0-5 states); Moderate success (6-24
states); High success (25+ states)
2.# of states reporting that they have or will use the
guidance document
a. Low success (0-5 states); Moderate success (6-24
states); High success (25+ states)
Products/Deliverables: Printed and electronic formats
of the guidance document will be distributed via mail,
websites and email.
Appendix II: American Climate and Energy
Security Act (HR 2454)
Text related to state natural resource adaptation plans
included the American Climate and Energy Security Act
(HR2454) passed by the House of Representatives by a
vote of 219-212 on June 26, 2009.
________________________________________
SEC. 479. STATE NATURAL RESOURCES
ADAPTATION PLANS.
(a) REQUIREMENT.—In order to be eligible for funds 22
under section 480, not later than 1 year after the development of a Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation
Strategy required under section 476 each State shall prepare
a State natural resources adaptation plan detailing
the State’s current and projected efforts to address the
potential impacts of climate change and ocean acidification
on natural resources and coastal areas within the State’s
jurisdiction.
(b) REVIEW OR APPROVAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State adaptation plan shall
be reviewed and approved or disapproved by the
Secretary of the Interior and, as applicable, the Secretary
33
of Commerce. Such approval shall be granted if the
plan meets the requirements of sub11 section (c) and is
consistent with the Natural Resources Climate Change
Adaptation Strategy required under section 476.
(2) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.—Within 180
days after transmittal of such a plan, or a revision to
such a plan, the Secretary of the Interior and, as applicable, the Secretary of Commerce shall approve or
disapprove the plan by written notice.
(3) RESUBMITTAL.—Within 90 days after transmittal
of a resubmitted adaptation plan as a result of disapproval under paragraph (3), the Secretary of the Interior
and, as applicable, the Secretary of Commerce, shall
approve or disapprove the plan by written notice.
(c) CONTENTS.—A State natural resources adaptation
plan shall—
(1) include a strategy for addressing the impacts of
climate change and ocean acidification on terrestrial,
marine, estuarine, and freshwater fish, wildlife, plants,
habitats, ecosystems, wildlife health, and ecological
processes, that—
(A) describes the impacts of climate change and
ocean acidification on the diversity and health of the
fish, wildlife and plant populations, habitats, ecosystems, and associated ecological processes;
(B) establishes programs for monitoring the impacts
of climate change and ocean acidification on fish,
wildlife, and plant populations, habitats, ecosystems,
and associated ecological processes;
(C) describes and prioritizes proposed conservation
actions to assist fish, wildlife, plant populations,
habitats, ecosystems, and associated ecological
processes in becoming more resilient, adapting to,
and better withstanding those impacts;
(D) includes strategies, specific conservation actions,
and a time frame for implementing conservation
actions for fish, wildlife, and plant populations, habitats, ecosystems, and associated ecological processes;
(E) establishes methods for assessing the effectiveness of strategies and conservation actions taken to
assist fish, wildlife, and plant populations, habitats,
ecosystems, and associated ecological processes
in becoming more resilient, adapt to, and better
withstand the impacts of climate changes and ocean
acidification and for updating those strategies and
actions to respond appropriately to new information
or changing conditions;
(F) is incorporated into a revision of the State wildlife
action plan (also known as the State comprehensive
wildlife strategy)—
34
(i) that has been submitted to the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service; and
(ii) that has been approved by the Service or on
which a decision on approval is pending; and
(G) is developed—
(i) with the participation of the State fish and
wildlife agency, the State coastal agency, the State
agency responsible for administration of Land and
Water Conservation Fund grants, the State Forest
Legacy program coordinator, and other State
agencies considered appropriate by the Governor
of such State; and
(ii) in coordination with the Secretary of the
Interior, and where applicable, the Secretary of
Commerce and other States that share jurisdiction
over natural resources with the State; and
(2) include, in the case of a coastal State, a strategy for
addressing the impacts of climate change and ocean
acidification on the coastal zone that—
(A) identifies natural resources that are likely to be
impacted by climate change and ocean acidification
and describes those impacts;
(B) identifies and prioritizes continuing research
and data collection needed to address those impacts
including—
(i) acquisition of high resolution coastal elevation
and near shore bathymetry data;
(ii) historic shoreline position maps, erosion
rates, and inventories of shoreline features and
structures;
(iii) measures and models of relative rates of sea
level rise or lake level changes, including effects
on flooding, storm surge, inundation, and coastal
geological processes;
(iv) habitat loss, including projected losses of
coastal wetlands and potentials for inland migration of natural shoreline habitats;
(v) ocean and coastal species and ecosystem
migrations, and changes in species population
dynamics;
(vi) changes in storm frequency, intensity, or
rainfall patterns;
(vii) saltwater intrusion into coastal rivers and
aquifers;
(viii) changes in chemical or physical characteristics of marine and estuarine systems;
(ix) increased harmful algal blooms; and
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(x) spread of invasive species;
(C) identifies and prioritizes adaptation strategies to
protect, restore, and conserve natural resources to
enable them to become more resilient, adapt to, and
withstand the impacts of climate change and ocean
acidification, including—
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.);
(6) the national coral reef action plan;
(7) recovery plans for threatened species and endangered
species under section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(f));
(i) protection, maintenance, and restoration of
ecologically important coastal lands, coastal and
ocean ecosystems, and species biodiversity and
the establishment of habitat buffer zones, migration corridors, and climate refugia; and
(8) habitat conservation plans under section 10 of that
Act (16 U.S.C. 1539);
(ii) improved planning, siting policies, and hazard
mitigation strategies;
(10) State or tribal hazard mitigation plans;
(D) establishes programs for the long-term monitoring of the impacts of climate change and ocean
acidification on the ocean and coastal zone and to
assess and adjust, when necessary, such adaptive
management strategies;
(E) establishes performance measures for assessing
the effectiveness of adaptation strategies intended to
improve resilience and the ability of natural resources
in the coastal zone to adapt to and withstand the
impacts of climate change and ocean acidification
and of adaptation strategies intended to minimize
those impacts on the coastal zone and to update those
strategies to respond to new information or changing
conditions; and
(F) is developed with the participation of the State
coastal agency and other appropriate State agencies
and in coordination with the Secretary of Commerce
and other appropriate Federal agencies.
(d) PUBLIC INPUT.—States shall provide for solicitation
and consideration of public and independent scientific input
in the development of their plans.
(e) COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS.—The State
plan shall take into consideration research and information
contained in, and coordinate with and integrate the goals
and measures identified in, as appropriate, other natural
resources conservation strategies, including—
(1) the national fish habitat action plan;
(2) plans under the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.);
(3) the Federal, State, and local partnership known as
‘‘Partners in Flight’’;
(4) federally approved coastal zone management plans
under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16
U.S.C. 1451 et seq.);
(5) federally approved regional fishery management plants and habitat conservation activities under
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(9) other Federal, State, and tribal plans for imperiled
species;
(11) State or tribal water management plans; and
(12) other State-based strategies that comprehensively
implement adaptation activities to remediate the effects
of climate change and ocean acidification on terrestrial,
marine, and freshwater fish, wildlife, plants, and other
natural resources.
(f) UPDATING.—Each State plan shall be updated not less
than every 5 years.
(g) FUNDING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Funds allocated to States under
section 480 shall be used only for activities that are
consistent with a State natural resources adaptation plan
that has been approved by the Secretaries of Interior and
Commerce.
(2) FUNDING PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF A
STATE PLAN.—Until the earlier of the date that is 3
years after the date of the enactment of this subpart or
the date on which a State receives approval for the State
strategy, a State shall be eligible to receive funding
under section 480 for adaptation activities that are—
(A) consistent with the comprehensive wildlife
strategy of the State and, where appropriate, other
natural resources conservation strategies; and
(B) in accordance with a work plan developed in
coordination with—
(i) the Secretary of the Interior; and
(ii) the Secretary of Commerce, for any coastal
State subject to the condition that coordination
with the Secretary of Commerce shall be required
only for those portions of the strategy relating to
activities affecting the coastal zone.
(3) PENDING APPROVAL.—During the period for
which approval by the applicable Secretary of a State
plan is pending, the State may continue receiving funds
under section 480 pursuant to the work plan described in
paragraph (2)(B).
35
Appendix III: FWS/AFWA Revision Guidance Letter (2007)
36
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Guidance for Wildlife Action Plan
(Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy)
Review and Revisions
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to identify the process and requirements that all States/territories must utilize for the
future review and revision of their Wildlife Action Plans (Action Plans).
Introduction
The Action Plans were developed by the States to be dynamic, adaptive documents that would guide agency and
partner conservation planning for years to come. Each State committed to reviewing or, if necessary, revising (review/revise) their Action Plan within 10 years as per Element 6 of the original legislation. Many States committed
to do so at much shorter intervals.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), encourages States to review and revise their plans as often as is useful
to them and their partners. Recent Congressional report language indicates that Congress expects the USFWS to develop guidance/standards that will be utilized by all States/territories to revise their action plans. The Congress also
expects that USFWS will apply the standards consistently in all Regions. (cf. Senate Report 109-275: Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2007. House Report 109-465: Department
of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2007). This guidance document will ensure
national consistency while allowing States and their partner’s flexibility to update their Action Plans without undue
burden.
Review Process
Original plan review, with approval recommendations to the Director of the USFWS was provided by a National Advisory Acceptance Team (NAAT) -- the Assistant Director of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration, each of the seven
USFWS Assistant Regional Directors for Migratory Birds and State Programs (ARD), Assistant Manager (AM) of
the California/Nevada Office, a representative State Director from each regional Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (AFWA), and a representative of the national AFWA organization.
Although a NAAT may be reconvened in the future to consider general policy matters or particularly complex review/revision issues, it is not anticipated that a NAAT will evaluate Action Plan review/revisions. Instead, that task
will be accomplished by Regional Review Teams (RRTs). The RRTs were an integral part of the original Action Plan
evaluation process and we feel that future evaluations of Action Plan review/revisions will be carried out more effectively using this regional approach. There will be eight RRTs, one within each FWS region. The RRTs are comprised
of one ARD, AM or equivalent; and one State Director appointed by each of the four regional associations (e.g.
Southeastern, Midwest, Northeast, and Western). State Directors serving on RRTs will not evaluate the Action Plan
from their own agency. In such cases, the Action Plan would be sent to another RRT for review. Federal Assistance
Program and State staff may assist the RRTs as necessary. RRTs will assist States with guidance on Action Plan
revisions and be available for any Action Plan related issues that may arise
General Requirements
All States must review/revise their Action Plans by October 1, 2015, or the date specified in their original, approved
Action Plan and send the updated version and summary documentation to the USFWS. This summary documentation must demonstrate that the entire Action Plan was examined and that all of the original Eight Required Elements
(attached) were met, including an up-to-date public review process specified in Elements 7 and 8. If no changes
were made, the State must document and explain why no changes were necessary and what process was used to
make that determination. For more details, see Section A. Once Action Plan review/revisions are approved, States
are not obligated to review/revise their Action Plans for another 10 years or until a date specified in the Action Plan.
A State may also revise only a part of its Action Plan without reviewing/revising its entire Action Plan. Some Action Plan revisions, including but not limited to the addition of a species, are defined as “major” (see definition on
page 5). As such, States must provide documentation that demonstrates all of the original Eight Required Elements
are adequately addressed, including an up-to-date public review process as specified in Elements 7 and 8. “Major”
revisions must follow the requirements outlined in Section B. All other revisions are considered “minor” and must
follow the requirements outlined in Section C.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
37
Specific Requirements
Section A.
Requirements for Planned Review/Revision of Entire Plan
(1) State agency director notifies its Regional USFWS
Federal Assistance office by letter of intent to review
or revise the Action Plan.
(2) State and USFWS meet to discuss guidance to ensure
all elements will be addressed prior to submission of
documentation and reviewed/revised Action Plan.
(3) State submits reviewed/revised Action Plan package
by October 1, 2015, or the date specified in its
original, approved Action Plan to the Regional Federal
Assistance office.
This package will include:
•
summary of any significant changes and documentation describing how the current version of Action Plan adequately addresses the Required Eight Elements, including an up-to-date public review process specified in Elements 7 and 8;
• “Road map” (summary of location of elements in document) to locate revisions in Action Plan.
(4) States are encouraged to post an electronic version of
their most recent Action Plan on the web along with
the summary of significant changes and “road map.”
(5) RRT reviews Action Plan with input from Federal
Assistance staff and determines whether it is approvable or not approvable. The ARD or AM will send a
letter to the State Director with documentation of the
decision and description of any required action if the
Action Plan is not approvable. State Directors can
appeal to the Regional Director.
(6) ARDs and AM are responsible for communicating
significant issues with members of all the RRTs to
ensure consistency among RRTs.
(7) States that specified a review/revision within 10 years
(prior to the October 1, 2015, deadline) in their Action
Plan and wish to change that date must submit a
“minor” revision letter (see Section C below) to their
Regional Federal Assistance office.
(8) Federal Assistance must track revisions and due dates
and maintain an administrative record of Action Plan
revisions.
Section B.
Requirements for “Major” Revisions Prior to the Planned
Review/Revision Date
“major” revisions to the Action Plan (See definition
below).
(2) State submits modified Action Plan and includes:
• summary of all significant revisions;
•
documentation describing how the revision meets the Required Eight Elements, including an up-to-
date public review process specified in Elements 7 and 8;
• “road map” to locate revisions in Action Plan.
(3) States are encouraged to post an electronic version
of their most recent Action Plan on the Web with the
summary of significant changes and “road map.”
(4) RRT reviews Action Plan with input from Federal
Assistance staff and determines whether it is approvable or not approvable. The ARD or AM will send a
letter to the State Director with documentation of the
decision and description of any required action if the
Action Plan is not approvable. State Directors can
appeal to the Regional Director.
(5) ARDs and AM are responsible for communicating
significant issues with members of all the RRTs to
ensure consistency among RRTs.
(6) Federal Assistance must track these revisions and
maintain an administrative record of Action Plan
revisions.
Section C.
Requirements for “Minor” Revisions Prior to the Planned
Review/Revision Date
(1) State Director notifies the Regional FWS Federal
Assistance office by letter of intent to make minor
revisions with a description of the change and why the
change is considered a minor revision.
(2) State submits letter that includes:
• summary of all revisions;
• “road map” to locate revisions in Action Plan.
(3) States are encouraged to post an electronic version of
their most recent Action Plan on the web along with
the summary of significant changes and “road map”
(summary of location of elements in document).
(4) Federal Assistance must track these revisions and
maintain an administrative record of Action Plan
revisions.
(1) State agency director notifies its Regional FWS
Federal Assistance office by letter of intent to make
38
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Definitions
“Major”: A significant change or changes that requires
revision of two or more elements in the Action Plan. Any
addition of a species of greatest conservation need (SGCN)
would be a major revision. This is considered a major
revision because it would require the State to substantially
address subsequent elements (i.e., habitats, threats, actions).
Similarly, a revision of its threat assessments for SGCN
species and/or habitats that are essential to conservation of
SGCN would be a major change because it would likely
result in changes to conservation actions and prioritization
of those conservation actions.
Appendix IV: Additional References,
Resources, and Training Tools
General Information on Climate Change and Current
and Future Impacts
Official Reports:
Bipartisan Policy Center. Sportsman scientific research on the
effects of global warming on fish and wildlife
California Climate Change Center. Our Changing Climate:
Assessing the Risks to California
Congressional Research Service. Global Climate Change and
Wildlife. Report for Congress
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Climate Change
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Summary for
Policymakers.
IPCC 4th Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007: Summary for Policymakers. (5.6 MB PDF)
Natural Resource Defense Council. “Hotter and Dryer: The
West’s Changed Landscape”
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. 2004.
National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan
2004-2007.
Australian Government, Department of the Environment
and Heritage, Canberra, ACT.
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change:
Pew Center. 2007. Impacts of Climate Change: Four U.S.
Case Studies
Pew Center. 2002 Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and
Global Climate Change: Potential Effects on U.S. Resources
Pew Center. 2007. The Importance of Climate Change for
Future Wildfire Scenarios in the Western United States
US Global Change Research Program. US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability
and Change Sector: Coastal Areas and Marine Resources
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
“Minor”: All revisions not considered “major.”
The RRT will determine if a change is minor or major
when it is unclear. This decision may be requested by
either the State or staff of Federal Assistance. State
Directors can appeal decisions to the Regional Director.
Note that States and other eligible jurisdictions that wish
to use State Wildlife Grant (SWG) funds to address critical
priority issues not identified within an Action Plan should
refer to the USFWS 2007 Administrative Guidelines for
State Wildlife Grants (SWG Guidelines), Section X.H.
The Wildlife Society. 2004. Global Climate Change and Wildlife in North America . Technical Review 04-2
Publications & Peer Reviewed Articles:
Holdren, John P. 2007. Meeting the Climate Change Challenge. Eighth Annual John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture
on Science and the Environment. 26 pp.
National Academies Press. Ecological Impacts of Climate
Change
Scientific Publication: Parmesan, Camille. Annual Review
of Ecology and Evolution Supplement. 2006.37.637-669
“Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change” (PDF)
Thomas, CD, Cameron, A, Green, RE, Bakkenes, M,
Beaumont, LJ, Collingham, YC, Erasmus, BFN, Siqueira,
MFD, Grainger, A, Hannah, L, Hughes, L, Huntley, B,
Jaarsveld, ASV, Midgley, GF, Miles, L, Ortega-Huerta,
MA, Peterson, AT, Phillips, OL, Williams, SE. 2004.
Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427(6970):
145-148.
United States Global Change Program. Global Climate Change
Impacts in the United States. 2009. Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo,
and T.C. Peterson (Eds). Cambridge University Press.
The Wildlife Society. Fall 2008. Adapting to Climate
Change. Wildlife Professional Special Issue. Vol. 2(3).
The Wildlife Society Climate Change Bibliography from
“Adapting to Climate Change” (PDF). Wildlife Professional Special Issue. Vol. 2(3).
Web Resources:
The National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate and
Global Dynamics. (Current climate news)
National Science Foundation . Global Climate Change
Research Explorer
Florida’s Wildlife: On the Frontline of Climate Change
U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Season’s End: Global Warming’s Threat to Hunting and
Fishing
39
Adaptation
A Climate of Change: Adaptation strategies for Water Resources.
California Department of Water Resources Canadian Climate
impacts and Adaptation Research Network – Archives
CCSP. 2008. Preliminary review of adaptation options for
climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee
on Global Change Research. [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.),
J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller,
M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA,
873 pp.
CCSP, 2009: Thresholds of Climate Change in Ecosystems. A
report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [ Fagre D.B.,
Charles C.W., Allen C.D., Birkeland C., Chapin F.S. III,
Groffman P.M., Guntenspergen G.R., Knapp A.K., McGuire
A.D., Mulholland P.J., Peters D.P.C., Roby D.D., and Sugihara G.] U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior,
Washington D.C., USA.
Cruce, Terri L. 2009. Adaptation Planning – What U.S. States
and Localities are Doing. PEW Center on Global Climate
Change.
Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition. 2008. Preparing for a Sea
Change in Florida – a strategy to cope with the impacts of
global warming on the state’s coastal and marine systems. 40
pp.
Fox, Douglas. 2007. Back to No-analog Future? Science vol.
316: 823-825.
Huntley, B. 2007. Climatic change and the conservation of European biodiversity: towards the development of adaptation
strategies. A discussion paper prepared for the 27th meeting
of the Standing Committee, Convention on the Conservation
of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Strasbourg, 26-29
November 2007. Council of Europe.
Mawdsley, J. R., R. O’Malley, and D. S. Ojima. 2009. A review
of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology
Early View On-Line.
Williams, John W. and Stephen T. Jackson. 2007. Novel
climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 5(9) 475-482.
Presentation: Confronting Climate Change -- The Challenge of
Adaptation (PDF)
The Massachusetts experience, by Hector Galbraith, PhD
Vulnerability
Publications & Peer Reviewed Articles:
Florida Wildlife Federation. 2006. An Unfavorable Tide
– global warming, coastal habitats and sport fishing in
Florida. 56 pp.
Stanton, Elizabeth A. and Frank Ackerman. 2007. Florida
and Climate Change – the costs of inaction. Tufts University. 91 pp.
Stuart Butchart. Climate Change - Species Vulnerability
Workshop Report
Web Resources:
Glick, P., A Staudt, B. Stein. 2009. A New Era for Conservation:
Review of Climate Change Adaptation Literature. National
Wildlife Federation.
IUCN Red List: SPECIES SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CLIMATE
CHANGE IMPACTS
Halpin, P. N. 1997. Global climate change and natural-area
protection: Management responses and research directions.
Ecological Applications 7:828-843.
The National Ecological Observatory Network.
Hannah, L., G. F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W. J. Bond, M. Bush, J.
C. Lovett, D. Scott, and F. I. Woodward. 2002. Conservation
of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biology
16:264-268.
USDA Forest Service Global Change Research provides long
term research, scientific information, and tools that can
be used by managers and policymakers to address climate
change impacts to forests and rangelands.
Hannah, L., and L. Hansen. 2005. Designing landscapes and
seascapes for change: in Climate Change and Biodiversity,
T. E. Lovejoy, and L. Hannah, editors. Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT.
USGS Ecosystem Global Change Research
Hopkins, J.J., H. M. Allison, C. A. Walmsley, M. Gaywood, G.
Thurgate. 2007. Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate: guidance on building capacity to adapt. Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London, England.
Hulme, P. E. 2005. Adapting to climate change: is there scope for
ecological management in the face of a global threat? Journal
of Applied Ecology 42:784-794.
40
Long Term Ecological Research
The National Phenology Network
USGS National Climate Change & Wildlife Science Center
Connectivity
Beier, P and Noss, R.F. 1998. Do habitat corridors provide
connectivity? Cons Bio 12:1241-1252.
Calabrese, J. M., and W.F. Fagan. 2004. A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ
2(10): 529–536
Crooks, Kevin R., M. A. Sanjavan. 2006. Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press.
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Hilty, Jodi A, W. Z. Lidicker, A.M. Merenlender, P. Andrew.
2006. Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Dobson
Island Press.
Lindenmayer, D., Fischer, J. 2006. Habitat fragmentation and
landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press.
Western Governor’s Association. Climate change and Connectivity
Monitoring Tools
Publications & Peer Reviewed Articles:
Brown, J. L., S.-H. Li, and N. Bhagabati. 1999. Long-term
trend toward earlier breeding in an American bird: a
response to global warming? Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
96:5565–5569.
Cooch, E. G., R. F. Rockwell, and S. Brault. 2001. Retrospective analysis of demographic responses to environmental
change: an example in the lesser snow goose. Ecological
Monographs 71:377–400.
Gitay, H., A. Suarez, D.J. Dokken, and R.T. Watson (eds).
2002. Climate Change and Biodiversity. IPCC Working
Group II.
Harvell, C. Drew, Charles E. Mitchell, Jessica R. Ward, Sonia
Altizer, Andrew P. Dobson, Richard S. Ostfeld, Michael D.
Samuel. 2002. Climate Warming and Disease Risks for
Terrestrial and Marine Biota. Science 21. Vol. 296(5576):
2158 – 2162
Parmesan, Camille and Gary Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural
systems. Nature 421: 37-42
Rose, G.A., 2005. Capelin (Mallotus villosus) distribution
and climate: a sea “canary” for marine ecosystem change.
ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil
62(7):1524-1530
Schneider, Stephen H. and Terry L. Root (eds.). 2001. Wildlife responses to climate change: North American case
studies. Island Press, Washington, DC, 437 p.
Schneider, Stephen H. and Terry L. Root. 2003. Wildlife Responses to Climate Change: North American Case Studies.
The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 78(1): 115
Spellerberg, Ian F. 2005. Monitoring ecological change, Edition 2. Cambridge University Press. 391 pages
Thomas, J.A. 2005. Monitoring change in the abundance
and distribution of insects using butterflies and other
indicator groups. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
360(1454:339-357
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Wiersma, G.B. 2004. Environmental monitoring, CRC Press,
Boca Raton/London 767 p.
Web Resources:
Environment Canada. Framework for monitoring biodiversity
change (species and species subgroups) within the ecological monitoring and assessment network in Canada.
Natural Resource Monitoring Network.
UCLA, Institute of the Environment, Southern California
Environmental Report Card, 2006. Innovations in Environmental Modeling.
Adaptive management
Department of Interiors. Adaptive Management
National Conservation Training Center’s Adaptive
Management Course Web Page
Mitigation
Biello, David. 2007. 10 solutions for climate change.
Scientific America .
Choudhury, K, C. Dziedzioch, A. Hausler, and C. Ploetz,.
2004. Integration of biodiversity concerns in climate
change mitigation activities: a toolkit. Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt), Berlin. 70 pp.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution
of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz,
O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)],
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.
Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp.
Pacala, SW and RH Socolow. 2004. Stabilization wedges:
solving the climate problem for the next 50 Years with
current technologies. Science 305: 968–972. http://
carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/PacalaSocolow-ScienceMag-Aug2004.pdf
Socolow, RH and SW Pacala. 2006. A plan to keep carbon in
check. Scientific America.
Sousounis, P. J., and J. M. Bisanz, editors. 2000. Preparing for
a changing climate—the potential consequences of climate
variability and change. Great Lakes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
The National Energy Lab. Carbon Sequestration Page.
41
Partners
Federal Partners
Bureau of Land Management, California
Environmental Protection Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Non-Governmental Organizations
(AFWA does not endorse any specific organization. These are for informational purposes)
Audubon
California Native Plant Society
California Partners in Flight
California Waterfowl Association
Center Biological Diversity
Central Valley Joint Venture
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited
Environmental Defense
National Wildlife Federation
NatureServe
The Nature Conservancy
Natural Resource Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Point Reyes Bird Observatory
Riparian Habitat Joint Venture
Resource Law Group
Trout Unlimited
The Wildlife Conservation Society
The Wildlife Society
Union of Concerned Scientists: Global Warming
International/Territories/Provinces
Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change
Natural Resources Canada: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division
United Kingdom’s Department of Energy and Climate Change
The United Nations Environment Programme
42
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
NOTES:
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
43
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
444 North Capitol Street,
NW
Suite 725
Washington, DC
Phone: 202/624-7890
Fax: 202/624-7891
Email: [email protected]
www.fishwildlife.org
44
The Voice of Fish and Wildlife Agencies